Service Law – Regularization – Seniority – Discriminatory denial of parity with juniors – Committee’s earlier favourable recommendation ignored without reason – Second meeting convened without justification – State’s contradictory stand regarding appointment of private respondents – Condition denying seniority struck down earlier – Held: Action arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 & 16; petitioner entitled to regularization benefits at par with juniors [Paras 6–11].

Administrative Law – Committee Proceedings – Once a committee resolves an issue by majority, recall of meeting without reason impermissible – Subsequent minutes authored individually but shown as collective decision – Such colourable exercise of power vitiated – Impugned order quashed [Paras 8–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality before law – State action must be reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory – Reliance placed on Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721 – State’s inconsistent justification and selective denial of benefits held unconstitutional [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 30.09.2015 quashed – Authorities directed to grant regularization and consequential benefits to the petitioner at par with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 [Para 11–12].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304A IPC – Death by Alleged Stone Pelting – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for causing death through rash and negligent act – On appeal, High Court finds that key witnesses including P.W.3 (complainant), P.W.4 and P.W.6 (injured) admitted inability to identify assailants due to darkness – No torchlight allegedly used by assailants was seized – Medical opinion consistent with accidental fall on hard surface – Held: Identity of accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 29–39, 45–49, 60–62]

Identification – Evidence in Nighttime Assault – Victim and witnesses admitted inability to identify assailants due to darkness – Torchlight said to have been used not recovered – Independent witnesses (P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11) did not implicate appellant – Absence of specific identification renders conviction unsafe [Paras 30–38, 45–58]

Medical Evidence – Contradiction with Ocular Evidence – Doctors (P.W.1 and P.W.2) opined injuries could result from fall on hard or stony surface – No external injuries consistent with targeted stone assault established – Injury reports vague and lacked detail – Held: Medical evidence does not support prosecution narrative of deliberate assault [Paras 41–44, 60–61]

Criminal Procedure – Benefit of Doubt – When key prosecution witnesses fail to identify accused, medical evidence is inconclusive, and investigation lacks corroborative seizure – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 62–64]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.04.1991 passed in Sessions Case No. 17/89 set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds to be discharged if not wanted in any other case – Appellant to furnish bonds under Section 437A CrPC for six months.

SARFAESI Act – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Free Consent – Coercion & Misrepresentation – DRT’s Limited Jurisdiction – Bar under Section 34 SARFAESI not attracted – Rejection of plaint set aside – Suit restored [Paras 16–27].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Averments in plaint alone to be considered – Failure to lodge FIR or criminal complaint cannot justify rejection – Allegations of coercion, threats and misrepresentation must be tested at trial – Trial court erred in relying on absence of criminal proceedings to reject plaint [Paras 16–18].

Contract Law – Free Consent – Coercion – Undue Influence – Plea strikes at validity of sale deed – Assertions of threats to family members and coercive execution, if proved, render contract void – Such questions cannot be adjudicated at Order VII Rule 11 stage [Paras 17–18, 22].

Pleading Fraud – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Non-elaborate particulars not fatal – Complaint is of coercion and misrepresentation coupled with fraud – Deficiency curable by amendment or during evidence – Not a ground for rejection at threshold [Para 19].

Evidence Act – Sections 91, 92 – Bar on oral evidence arises only at evidentiary stage – Cannot be invoked to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plea of non-payment of consideration coupled with coercion survives [Paras 21–22].

Sale Deed – Non-payment of consideration – Not by itself a ground for cancellation – But where execution alleged to be involuntary and induced by coercion, misrepresentation and threats, plaint discloses cause of action – Cannot be rejected summarily [Paras 22–23].

SARFAESI Act – Section 34 – Bar not applicable – Suit seeks cancellation of a registered sale deed, a relief beyond the jurisdiction of DRT – DRT cannot cancel registered conveyances – Supreme Court decision in Prabha Jain applied – Civil court jurisdiction preserved [Paras 24–25].

Civil Procedure – Threshold Scrutiny – Even remote chances of success cannot be grounds for rejection – Only when plaint is barred on its face can Order VII Rule 11 be invoked – Present plaint discloses cause of action and is not barred by law [Paras 23, 26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting plaint set aside – Suit restored – Trial court to proceed uninfluenced by observations in appellate judgment [Paras 27–30].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Appeal against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Financial Capacity and Rebuttal of Presumption – Complainant alleged advancing Rs. 10 Lakhs cash loan – Trial Court acquitted accused citing lack of evidence for transaction and probable defence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: Complainant failed to prove financial capacity or purpose of loan – Defence successfully rebutted presumption by establishing the cheque was likely a security for husband’s transaction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11].

Evidence – Financial Capacity – Lack of Documentation – Complainant, a financier, claimed to have lent Rs. 10 Lakhs in cash but failed to produce Income Tax records or mention the purpose of the loan – High Court affirmed that advancing such a high amount without documentation renders the initial case of the complainant "wobbly" even before presumption is raised [Paras 5, 9].

Cheque – Material Alterations and Execution – Signature on the cheque was in different ink compared to other entries – Complainant failed to depose that the cheque was filled by the accused in his presence – Circumstances supported the defence version that a blank cheque was issued as security rather than for the alleged debt [Para 10].

Presumption and Rebuttal – Standard of Proof – Accused examined herself (D.W.2) and produced documents relating to connected insolvency proceedings and other transactions involving her husband – Court held that the accused rebutted the statutory presumption to the level of preponderance of probability – Benefit of doubt rightly granted by Trial Court [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Criminal Law – Section 314 IPC – Illegal Abortion Causing Death – Conviction Confirmed – Appellant, an unqualified person, attempted to terminate pregnancy of deceased (8 months pregnant) using root-like object and fishing hook – Deceased died due to hemorrhage and septicemia following crude and unhygienic abortion – Eyewitness PW-1 (sister-in-law) and PW-3 (daughter of deceased) deposed to invasive act and pleas of victim to be taken to hospital – Medical evidence corroborated uterine perforation and presence of foetal parts – Held: Act was performed without medical qualification, consent of deceased does not exonerate appellant – Conviction under Section 314 IPC upheld [Paras 3–5, 11–13, 22–27, 32, 40–42]

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Corroboration – PW-1 and PW-3 provided consistent, credible eyewitness testimony of abortion being performed with fishing hook – Medical Officer (PW-5) confirmed cause of death as septicemia and hemorrhage due to mid-trimester incomplete abortion – Hook-like injuries matched medical findings – Testimony found natural, unimpeached and consistent with scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–13, 26–27, 29–30, 32]

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Plea for Reduction Rejected – Appellant claimed sentence excessive due to her old age (over 70 years) and lack of intention to cause death – Court held appellant’s actions were inherently dangerous and illegal, involving gross negligence and reckless disregard for life – Consent of victim to abortion irrelevant when procedure is manifestly unsafe – Held: Sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 314 IPC is just and proportionate – No mitigating circumstance warranting reduction [Paras 8, 33–39]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 314 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to undergo remaining part of sentence [Paras 40–43]

Property Law – Matrimonial Home – Ownership – Respondent-husband held exclusive title over suit property based on registered Sale Deed – Appellant admitted property was purchased in respondent’s name and made limited loan repayments – Held: No co-ownership or proprietary interest established by appellant – Mere payment of a few instalments or residence during marriage does not create legal ownership rights – Benami plea barred under Benami Transactions Act [Paras 13–18, 23]

Civil Procedure – Mesne Profits – Partial Loan Contribution by Wife – Trial Court awarded mesne profits @ Rs. 3,000 per month – High Court noted appellant had made limited loan repayments and resided permissively during marriage – Respondent admitted joint contributions during cohabitation – Held: Award of mesne profits not justified in totality – Finding on mesne profits set aside [Paras 25–27]

Family Law – Right to Residence – Shared Household – Appellant claimed right to reside under Domestic Violence Act – High Court reaffirmed that right to reside in shared household is not absolute and does not confer ownership – Post-divorce, domestic relationship ceases and so does right to shared residence – Respondent entitled to seek eviction through lawful civil proceedings [Paras 20–22]

Evidence – Registered Document – Presumption of Validity – Sale Deed registered in respondent’s name remained unchallenged – Presumption of lawful execution upheld – Appellant’s admission in pleadings and cross-examination further corroborated ownership of respondent [Paras 11–15]

Appeal – Partial Interference – Findings of Trial Court on title and possession upheld – Findings on mesne profits/damages set aside – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 19, 28]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of possession upheld – Award of mesne profits/damages set aside – No error in Trial Court’s findings on ownership – Respondent entitled to recover possession – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Arrest Warrants – Economic Offences – Petitioner challenged trial court’s order rejecting application under Section 70(2) CrPC for converting arrest warrants into bailable warrants – Allegation of tax evasion of over ₹10.65 crores under CGST and Customs Acts – Held: Offences are grave economic crimes with national fiscal implications – Petition raises significant legal issue involving conflicting High Court precedents – Matter referred to Larger Bench [Paras 1–5, 22–30]

Economic Offences – Tax Evasion – Gravity of Offence – Court held that economic offences involving fake ITC claims and massive loss to public exchequer must be viewed seriously – Mere readiness to appear or quantum of sentence is not sufficient ground to convert non-bailable warrants – White-collar crimes affect national economy and require stricter bail considerations [Paras 6–9, 12–17]

Judicial Precedent – Conflicting Coordinate Bench Decisions – In view of divergent rulings in P.C. Purohit v. Union of India and Girdhar Gopal Bajaria v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Court emphasized that judicial propriety demands matter be referred to Larger Bench – Coordinate Bench cannot override previous ruling of equal strength – Reference made to Chief Justice for constitution of Special/Larger Bench [Paras 22–30]

Decision: Petition not decided on merits – Matter referred to Special/Larger Bench to resolve conflict in precedents – Chief Justice requested to constitute appropriate bench to answer whether arrest warrants in serious economic and criminal cases can be converted into bailable warrants as a matter of right under Sections 70(2) CrPC or 72(2) BNSS.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Non-supply of Audit Report & Accounts – Absence of Personal Hearing – Rule 16(ii) of Helpers Service Rules – Opportunity of Hearing Must be Read Into the Statute – Disciplinary Orders Unsustainable – Writ Appeal Dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Even if Statute Does Not Mandate Hearing, Fairness Requires It – Personal hearing mandatory to ensure fair enquiry – Failure to grant hearing before Ext.P5 vitiates proceedings [Para 7].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Supply of Relied-on Documents – Non‐furnishing of audit report and statements of accounts causes serious prejudice – Delinquent deprived of meaningful defence – Violation of natural justice – Orders rightly quashed by Single Judge [Para 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Reading Principles of Natural Justice Into Rules – Following Abdulla T.A. v. Supplyco (2020 (1) KHC 236), Court holds that even in absence of express provision, opportunity of hearing must be read in – Rule 16(ii) does not override natural justice requirements [Para 7].

Decision – No merit in appeal – Single Judge’s findings upheld – Writ Appeal dismissed [Final Para].

Intellectual Property – Trademark Infringement – Permitted User – Consent Decree Enforcement – Plaintiff “The Indian Express” sought injunction against Defendant for using “New Indian Express” in Mumbai for event promotion, violating Clause 18(iv) of MoS dated 05/02/1995 and Supplemental MoS dated 12/08/2005 – Defendant granted only limited user rights for publishing English daily in five southern states and specified UTs – Held: Defendant’s conduct in Mumbai beyond scope of permitted user – Prima facie case made out for infringement and passing off [Paras 1, 75–78, 93].

Contract – Interpretation of Consent Decree – Negative Covenant – Clauses 17, 18(iv), and 19(iv) of MoS impose absolute restriction on Defendant’s use of title “New Indian Express” outside permitted territory and only for publication – Event organization, even promotional, falls outside permitted scope – Held: Limited permissive use strictly confined to agreed terms – No rights conferred for standalone events or revenue-generating activities outside agreed states/UTs [Paras 73–77, 91–93].

Acquiescence and Waiver – Consent Decree – Defendant argued Plaintiff waived rights by non-objection and joint advertising history – Held: No waiver/acquiescence can override a binding consent decree – Plaintiff’s silence, if any, does not imply consent – IPAB order of 2015 restricting use to southern states & UTs remains unchallenged and binding – No positive act amounting to waiver established [Paras 85–90].

Trademark Law – Derivative Marks – Use of “New Indian Express” – Held: Merely adding “New” to “Indian Express” does not create a new distinctive mark – Defendant’s trademark rights exist only under MoS – Registration alone does not confer independent proprietary rights – Plaintiff’s ownership over “Indian Express” remains absolute and enforceable [Paras 92–93].

Delhi High Court Orders – Not Binding – Defendant relied on interim orders of Delhi High Court (2011) – Held: Findings are not binding or conclusive – Delhi Suit dismissed for non-prosecution – No estoppel arises – IPAB’s order and MoS prevail [Paras 83–84].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Injunction granted restraining Defendant from using “New Indian Express” for events, promotion or business outside permitted states/UTs – Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) – No costs awarded [Para 95].