Education Law – Unrecognised Schools – Mandatory Recognition under RTE Act – Section 18 – Petitioners alleged that a private educational institution was being run without statutory recognition – Educational authorities found institution to be unrecognised and issued stop memo – Held: Running any school without recognition from the competent Government authority is impermissible and violative of Section 18 of the RTE Act [Paras 2, 7, 9].

Education Law – Religious / Pre-school Instruction – Scope of RTE Act – Institution imparting pre-school education with religious instruction to around 300 students – Reliance placed on earlier decision of Kerala High Court disapproving imparting religious instruction without State permission – Such institutions cannot function outside statutory framework under guise of pre-school or religious education [Paras 7–8].

Recognition – National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) – Effect – Institution relied on NIOS accreditation to justify continuation – Held: Accreditation by NIOS does not dispense with requirement of recognition under Section 18 of the RTE Act from the State Government – NIOS recognition alone insufficient [Paras 6–7].

Writ of Mandamus – Enforcement of Statutory Duty – Petition by local residents – Authorities duty-bound to act on reports finding lack of recognition – Direction issued to shut down unrecognised educational institution – Mandamus granted [Paras 2, 10].

Equitable Relief – Students’ Interest – Time to Make Alternate Arrangements – While ordering closure, Court granted limited protection by permitting institution to function for the academic year 2025–26 to enable students to make alternative arrangements [Para 10].

Connected Writ Petition – Challenge to Closure Proceedings – Educational institution sought quashing of stop memo and closure direction – Held: No legal right to continue without recognition – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–10].

Decision: WP(C) No.21615 of 2023 allowed – Authorities directed to shut down unrecognised institution subject to limited continuation for academic year 2025–26 – WP(C) No.28053 of 2024 dismissed.

Anticipatory Bail – Prevention of Money Laundering – Organized Cyber Frauds – Petitioners alleged to be key operatives in third and second layers of laundering network – Large-scale layering of proceeds of crime through hundreds of mule accounts, conversion to cryptocurrency, and uploading to UAE-based PYYPL platform – ED investigation revealed deep involvement of petitioners in managing over 30 entities and routing ₹65 crore through fraudulent transactions – Custodial interrogation sought by ED – Held: Petitioners played significant role in laundering – Bail denied [Paras 2–3, 5–9]

Twin Conditions under Section 45 PMLA – Applicability to Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners argued that mere dealing in cryptocurrency is not an offence and relied on parity with co-accused granted bail – Held: Bail cannot be granted unless both twin conditions under Section 45 are satisfied – Plea of parity misplaced as co-accused were granted regular bail post-custody – Section 45 applies fully to anticipatory bail as well – There are no reasonable grounds to believe accused are not guilty or unlikely to commit offences while on bail [Paras 3, 4, 14–15]

Continuing Investigation – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation ongoing with new complaints emerging – Petitioners allegedly wiped digital evidence, assaulted ED officers, and paid bribes to local police – ED requires custody to trace further layering and involvement of banking officials – Held: Court cannot override investigative necessity for effective interrogation and evidence collection – Bail would risk destruction of crucial evidence [Paras 7, 10–13]

Economic Offences – Seriousness – Impact on Public Confidence and National Economy – Money laundering offences viewed as aggravated economic crimes with transnational dimensions – Held: Economic offences constitute a distinct class – Investigation must be allowed full play before grant of bail can be considered [Paras 4.4–4.5, 9.3–9.5]

Constitutional Rights vs. Investigative Interests – Petitioners relied on Article 21 for anticipatory bail – Held: Right to liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against public interest in effective investigation – Article 21 cannot be used to block necessary custodial interrogation [Paras 4.2, 10]

Decision: Both anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Petitioners failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA – Custodial interrogation found necessary due to serious nature of allegations and risk of evidence tampering – No protection from arrest granted.

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C – Allegation of Voyeurism – Section 354C IPC – Ingredients of Offence Not Made Out – Private complaint alleging taking of photograph of complainant while laying clothes for drying – Sworn statement did not disclose that complainant was engaged in a “private act” or that her privacy was violated – No allegation of exposure of private parts or expectation of privacy as contemplated under Section 354C – Held: Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7–10, 11].

Voyeurism – Meaning of “Private Act” – Explanation to Section 354C IPC – Scope – Act of laying clothes for drying in front of house – No material to show complainant was not properly dressed or engaged in any act reasonably expected to provide privacy – Mere presence of accused or flashing of light insufficient to attract offence – Cognizance taken without foundational facts – Proceedings unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 66E – Violation of Privacy – Capture of Image of Private Area – Essential Requirement – Sworn statement of complainant did not allege photographing of naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts – No prima facie case under Section 66E made out [Para 10].

Protest Complaint – Credibility – Contradictory Versions – Initial complaint, investigation reports and protest complaint disclose material inconsistencies – Two police refer reports finding complaint false – Radical change in version at protest stage – Statements of witnesses inconsistent with complainant’s own version – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance in absence of sufficient materials [Paras 3–5, 7, 11].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Abuse of Process – Accused compelled to face prosecution without sufficient grounds – Held: Ends of justice require interference – Proceedings in C.C No.555/2018 quashed against Accused Nos.1 to 3 [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara quashed.

Criminal Procedure – Inherent Powers of High Court – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Sections 406 and 409 IPC – Allegations relating to misappropriation and non-return of official hospital admission records – Held: FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence – No ground made out to invoke inherent jurisdiction [Paras 7, 14].

Double Jeopardy – Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Applicability – Petitioner contended that earlier FIR for forgery of hospital records bars subsequent prosecution – Earlier case related to offences of forgery and fabrication to secure bail – Present FIR pertains to criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of government records – Held: Ingredients of offences distinct – No prior trial, conviction or acquittal – Section 300 Cr.P.C. not attracted [Paras 10–12].

Article 20(2), Constitution of India – Same Offence – Scope – Protection against double jeopardy applies only where accused has been prosecuted and punished for same offence on identical facts – Subsequent prosecution for distinct offence with different ingredients permissible – Held: Constitutional bar not applicable in present case [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Government Records – Prima Facie Case – Material on record showed that petitioner requisitioned Indoor Patient Admission Register and failed to return it – Statements of staff nurses and seizure of audio recordings corroborate allegations – Held: Accusations not baseless or malafide – Investigation justified [Paras 13–14].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Limits of Jurisdiction – High Court should not stifle legitimate prosecution – Where allegations disclose commission of offence and investigation reveals supporting material, quashing is impermissible – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal and Zandu Pharmaceutical principles – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–9, 14–15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned FIR and consequential proceedings upheld.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Conviction under Section 366 IPC and Section 6(1) POCSO Act – Victim allegedly aged 17 years and 10 months – Trial Court convicted A1 while acquitting A2 – On appeal, High Court found serious infirmities in prosecution case – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 13–14].

Evidence – Proof of Age of Victim – Essential Requirement under POCSO Act – Prosecution relied on school certificate issued by Headmaster (PW8) – PW8 admitted that birth certificate and admission register were not verified before issuing certificate – Victim admittedly studying in college at relevant time – No matriculation certificate, birth certificate or college records produced – Held: Prosecution failed to establish age of victim in manner known to law – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 8–9, 13].

Delay in Lodging FIR – FIR lodged nearly two months after alleged occurrence – Victim claimed she informed her mother on same day – Mother (PW11) gave contradictory version regarding disclosure and complaint – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Delay coupled with contradictions created serious doubt about prosecution story [Paras 10–11].

Consent – Consensual Relationship – Evidence of victim revealed long-standing love affair of about two years – Victim admitted accompanying appellant voluntarily and refusing to return with grandmother – Conduct inconsistent with allegation of forcible kidnapping and sexual assault – Held: Evidence indicates consensual relationship which later turned sour – Prosecution version unreliable [Paras 7, 12].

Benefit of Doubt – Failure to Prove Date of Birth and Date of Occurrence – Serious inconsistencies between testimony of victim and her mother – Possibility of false projection of age and occurrence to attract POCSO provisions – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2023 in Spl.SC.No.37 of 2020 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under IPC and POCSO Act – Fine amount, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond discharged.

Senior Citizens Act – Section 23 – Annulment of Gift – Petitioner, 84-year-old senior citizen, executed gift deed in favour of daughters on assurance of care – Subsequent neglect pleaded – Authorities rejected application solely on ground that gift deed lacked express maintenance clause – Held, senior citizen made out case for invoking Section 23 – Transfer vitiated by constructive fraud upon failure of donees to honour assurance of care – Gift deed annulled [Paras 17, 23].

Express Maintenance Clause – Whether Mandatory – Section 23(1) does not require express recital of maintenance in gift deed – Obligation can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, relationship of parties, and subsequent conduct – Insistence on written stipulation defeats welfare object of Act – Oral understanding sufficient compliance [Paras 18.1-18.14].

Constructive Fraud – Welfare Legislation – Section 23 embodies doctrine of constructive fraud distinct from fraud under Contract Act – Abuse of trust and failure to provide care after gratuitous transfer by senior citizen renders transaction voidable at option of transferor – Focus on substance over form [Paras 19.6-19.9].

Admission by Donee – Evidentiary Value – Surviving donee filed memo expressing no objection to annulment – Admission constitutes substantive evidence supporting petitioner’s plea – Authorities erred in ignoring said admission – Admission has decisive bearing on objections of derivative claimant [Paras 20.2-20.9].

Derivative Claim – Legal Representative of Donee – Respondent No.6, grandson and legal heir of deceased donee, claimed through her – Held, derivative claimant cannot assert independent right once transfer is annulled under Section 23 – No vested right in self-acquired property of parent during lifetime – All derivative rights collapse upon annulment [Paras 21.2-21.18].

Scope of Proceedings under Section 23 – Not Adjudication of Title – Jurisdiction is special, welfare-oriented and not conventional civil adjudication of title – Authorities must examine vulnerability, dependence, and misuse of trust – Hyper-technical approach impermissible [Paras 21.3-21.4, 22.5-22.8].

Perversity – Non-Consideration of Material Facts – Authorities failed to consider petitioner’s age, illiteracy, drafting of deed by donees, admission by one donee, and derivative nature of objections – Mechanical insistence on express clause amounts to misapplication of statute – Orders vitiated by perversity and non-application of mind [Paras 22.3-22.9].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner quashed – Application under Section 23(1) allowed – Gift deed dated 19.04.2023 annulled and declared void – Revenue authorities directed to restore petitioner’s name in records within six weeks – No costs.

Trade Union Recognition – Statutory Mechanism – West Bengal Amendment Act, 1983 – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Petitioner union sought recognition as constituent of joint bargaining council and derecognition of rival union – Held: Recognition of trade unions and disputes regarding legality of registration are exclusively governed by Sections 28A/28B and Section 7 of the Trade Unions Act – Proper authority is Registrar of Trade Unions – Writ petition dismissed for non-availment of statutory remedy [Paras 20–27].

Writ of Mandamus – Absence of Enforceable Legal Right – Recognition of Trade Union Not a Fundamental or Legal Right Enforceable in Writ Jurisdiction – Employer is a private entity not discharging public duty – Relief seeking direction for recognition by private employer impermissible under Article 226 [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Alternate Remedy – Doctrine of Exhaustion – Petitioner failed to approach Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No.5) for recognition or challenge to alleged illegal registration of rival union – Held: When statute provides complete machinery, writ court should not be invoked in the first instance [Paras 21–26].

Trade Unions Act – Section 7 – Identical or Deceptively Similar Names – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Allegation that two unions registered with identical names – Held: Issue squarely falls within powers of Registrar of Trade Unions – High Court declined to adjudicate in writ jurisdiction [Paras 24–25].

Industrial Relations – Inter-union Rivalry – Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction – Disputes relating to membership strength, recognition and bargaining rights between rival unions are matters for statutory authorities and industrial adjudication – Not for determination under Article 226 [Paras 15, 18–19].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty implied to petitioner to approach Registrar of Trade Unions for appropriate relief under the Trade Unions Act and the West Bengal Amendment Act – Interim orders vacated – Connected applications disposed of.

Plaint – Rejection of Plaint – Under-valuation – Advanced Stage of Trial – Application filed after examination of defence witness (DW.4) – Defendant sought rejection of plaint alleging that suit property was undervalued based on evidence of Sub-Registrar official regarding sale value of nearby properties – Trial Court dismissed the application holding that under-valuation was not substantiated and application was belated – Held: Evidence of DW.4 only indicated approximate value including land and building and did not conclusively establish market value of land alone – Valuation of construction varies depending on quality and age of building – No definite conclusion of under-valuation possible on such evidence – Disputed question of fact involved, requiring detailed enquiry – Rejection of plaint at such stage not warranted – No illegality or irregularity in impugned order [Paras 2–7].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Though application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage before disposal of suit – When plea involves disputed facts relating to valuation and requires evidence, plaint cannot be rejected summarily – Proper course is framing of issue and trial on valuation, if sought – Liberty granted to defendant to seek framing of issue on valuation before Trial Court [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2025 upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply before Trial Court for framing an issue on valuation of plaint – No costs – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Vendor Agreement – Petitioner contended it was an assembler, not manufacturer, and that respondent was obligated to pay 100% advance – Arbitrator found petitioner responsible for non-delivery of goods and liable to refund part of advance with interest – Held: Findings based on appreciation of contract and evidence – No perversity or patent illegality – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–3, 10–12, 20–21]

Interpretation of Contract – Payment Terms and Procurement Obligations – Vendor Agreement required petitioner to procure components (five from vendors identified by respondent) and deliver finished switches – No contractual clause requiring 100% advance – Petitioner failed to supply full quantity under Purchase Order – Arbitrator’s interpretation that payment was due post-acceptance of goods found plausible – No interference warranted [Paras 7–9, 11–13]

Scope under Section 34 – Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards – Court reiterated narrow scope of interference under Section 34 – Arbitrator’s view must be respected if plausible and not perverse – Court not to sit in appeal or reappreciate evidence – Relied on Prakash Atlanta v. NHAI, Ramesh Kumar Jain v. BALCO, and Parsa Kente Collieries v. RRUVNL [Paras 19.1–19.3]

Contractual Interpretation – Entire Agreement Clause – Clause 14.10 of Vendor Agreement did not nullify existing purchase orders but governed terms of performance – No merit in contention that PO stood extinguished [Para 15]

Arbitral Remedy – Back-to-Back Refund for Vendor-Identified Components – Arbitrator rightly noted that deficiencies in components from respondent’s identified vendors would attract refund only if vendor issued a back-to-back refund – No absolute liability of respondent for advance payment [Para 8.2, 16]

Decision: Petition under Section 34 dismissed – Arbitral award upheld – No perversity, patent illegality, or conflict with public policy found – Pending application also dismissed.