Civil Law – Commercial Recovery – Dismissal of Suit – Appeal – Plaintiff textile company filed suit for recovery of ₹7,86,101/- against event organiser alleging breach of booth fabrication contract for international exhibition in Frankfurt – Trial Court dismissed suit for lack of evidence and non-joinder of necessary party – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove claim due to lack of competent and knowledgeable witness – Testimony of SPA holder devoid of personal knowledge – Defendant had transferred money to third party (Anuj Gautam) with plaintiff’s consent – Non-joinder of third-party contractor fatal to suit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 3–5, 10–21, 26–34, 39–40].

Evidence Act – Proof of Transaction – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff relied on testimony of SPA holder (PW-1) with no personal knowledge of transaction – PW-1 admitted he did not visit site, had no knowledge of business dealings, and had met director of plaintiff company only once – Held: SPA witness must have personal knowledge of transaction to testify – Plaintiff failed to discharge burden under Sections 101 to 106 of Evidence Act – Reliance on National Small Industries and A.C. Narayanan misplaced – Those cases require witness to have both authorization and personal knowledge [Paras 13–15, 26–29, 35].

Contract Law – Privity of Contract – Third Party Execution – Defendant referred work to third-party vendor (Anuj Gautam) allegedly with plaintiff’s consent – Plaintiff failed to implead said third party – Trial Court and Appellate Court held that without impleading executing party, suit for deficiency in service was not maintainable – Held: Non-joinder of necessary party fatal under Order I Rule 9 CPC – No effective adjudication possible without third party – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 7–8, 19–20, 31–34].

Admissions – Section 58 Evidence Act – Applicability – Plaintiff claimed admitted facts (receipt of money and partial refund) should be accepted without proof – Held: Admission of receipt alone insufficient – Plaintiff must still prove that balance was unjustifiably retained and not paid to third party as instructed – No legal inference of liability can be drawn from partial refund alone – No admission by defendant acknowledging liability for ₹7.86 lakhs [Paras 22, 38].

Commercial Courts Act – Pre-Institution Mediation – Procedural Compliance – Plaintiff attempted pre-suit mediation under Section 12A – Defendant did not participate – Suit proceeded – Compliance with procedural requirement upheld – However, case failed on merits [Para 6].

Approbate and Reprobate – Allegation of Inconsistent Conduct – Plaintiff argued defendant could not deny liability after issuing recovery notice to third party – Held: No inconsistent conduct shown – Defendant's consistent stand was that it acted only as intermediary – Recovery notice to third party not inconsistent with denial of liability towards plaintiff – Reliance on Karunesh Kumar and Dhanjeet Singh misplaced – No application to facts of commercial recovery [Paras 25, 36–37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Suit rightly dismissed by Trial Court – Plaintiff failed to prove claim or join necessary party – Pending application also dismissed as infructuous – No costs awarded [Paras 40–41].

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Section 43D(5) – Bail – Prima Facie True Test - Appellant, alleged active member of terror syndicate led by Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu, charged under UAPA, IPC, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act for orchestrating the 18.12.2020 Tetariyakhad Colliery attack involving indiscriminate firing, arson of four trucks, and injuries to civilians – Recovery of country-made pistol from appellant – FSL report confirmed shells from the crime scene were fired from the appellant’s weapon – Protected witnesses identified the appellant as one of the armed attackers – Court reiterated that under Section 43D(5) UAPA, bail must be denied where accusations are prima facie true – National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 applied [Paras 33–37, 45–57, 69–73].

Bail – UAPA Offences – Delay in Trial – Applicability of Article 21 – Appellant in custody since 07.02.2021 – Trial commenced and witnesses under examination – Court held mere delay not ground for bail in serious terrorist offences; distinguished Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, as trial had progressed and constitutional violation not established – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC OnLine SC 109) followed [Paras 64–65, 68].

Bail – Principle of Parity – Distinction Between Co-accused – Co-accused Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav granted bail based on long custody and minimal role – Present appellant identified as principal conspirator who directed co-accused Ajay Turi to write threatening pamphlets and participated in arson and firing – Court held parity cannot be mechanically applied; role-specific analysis required – Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230 and Tarun Kumar v. Asst. Director, ED (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486) relied upon – Held: parity not available [Paras 66–73].

Bail – Restrictive Scope under UAPA – “Bail the Exception, Jail the Rule” – Court reaffirmed that conventional bail principle “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” does not apply under UAPA – Once prima facie satisfaction of involvement exists, bail must be rejected as a rule – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Watali (supra) reaffirmed [Paras 38–44, 53–57].

Result – Appellant failed to show change in circumstances or new grounds – Material on record shows active participation in terrorist act and recovery of incriminating weapons – Trial ongoing – Bail rejected – Appeal dismissed [Paras 63–75].

Criminal Law – Rape – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix – FIR lodged after delay of one day, allegedly after husband’s consent – Medical examination showed ruptured hymen but no external injuries – Neighbours, husband, and key witnesses not examined – Held: In absence of corroboration and amid glaring contradictions regarding the occurrence, identification of accused, sleeping arrangement, and presence of weapon, conviction cannot be sustained – Sole testimony not inspiring confidence [Paras 10–16, 18–21].

Criminal Evidence – Delay in FIR – Victim lodged complaint one day after incident citing need for husband’s permission – Husband not examined to corroborate – No neighbour examined despite claim that one informed husband – Delay and absence of explanation create serious doubt on authenticity of allegation [Paras 11–13].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Doctor found only ruptured hymen, no external injuries or marks of violence – Victim a married woman with three children – Held: Medical findings inconsistent with allegation of forcible rape; rupture of hymen not conclusive of sexual assault [Paras 14–15].

Defective Investigation – Investigation found to be perfunctory – Failure to seize mat, weapon, or clothing – No site sketch or verification of call records – No examination of key witnesses – Held: Though defective investigation alone not ground for acquittal, when coupled with unreliable and inconsistent evidence, prosecution case collapses [Para 19].

Presumption of Innocence – Standard of Proof – Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion cannot substitute proof – Major inconsistencies and unexplained circumstances warrant benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 20–21].

Decision – Trial court erred in relying solely on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix despite serious contradictions and lack of evidence – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of [Paras 22–23].

Civil Writ - Rent Control – Court Fees – Determination of Applicable Provision – Petitioner challenged the calculation of court fees on execution of order passed under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (Act No.16 of 2021) – Rent Authority had demanded fee as per Section 7(xi-b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 treating it as recovery of possession – Held: Application under Section 10(1) pertains to determination of revised rent, not recovery of possession – Therefore, fee governed by Section 39(3) of Act No.16 of 2021, read with Schedule-II Item No.1-b of the Court Fees Act, 1870 [Paras 5–7, 12–14, 19–20].

Interpretation of Statutes – Special vs. General Law – Overriding Effect – Section 42 of Act No.16 of 2021 gives overriding effect to its provisions in case of inconsistency with any other law – Consequently, Section 7(xi-b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (general law) applies only to recovery of possession cases, whereas Section 39(3) governs all other applications before the Rent Authority – Special law prevails over general law [Paras 16–17, 19].

Court Fees – Classification under Section 39 – Section 39 divides applications into two categories:

(i) those for recovery of possession or appeals therefrom, treated as suits between landlord and tenant (fee under Section 7(xi-b), Court Fees Act, 1870); and

(ii) all other applications (including determination of rent under Section 10), where fee equals that of interlocutory applications in Civil Courts (Schedule-II Item 1-b, Court Fees Act, 1870) [Paras 14–15, 19].

Execution Proceedings – Time-bound Adjudication – In light of Sections 33(2), 35(2), and 36(3) of Act No.16 of 2021, Rent Authority directed to dispose of Execution Case No.127 of 2023 within 30 days – Court further directed Rent Authorities and Rent Tribunals across the State to adhere strictly to statutory timelines for all pending matters [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Orders dated 28.05.2024 and 29.05.2024 of Rent Authority, Agra, found inconsistent with Section 39(3) of Act No.16 of 2021 – Matter remanded to Rent Authority, Agra, to recalculate court fee as per Schedule-II Item No.1-b of Court Fees Act, 1870 within two weeks – Execution to be concluded within 30 days thereafter – Petition allowed [Paras 20–23].

Criminal Law – Seizure of Vehicle – Prohibition Offence – Interim Custody – Vehicle seized under FIR for carrying liquor in violation of Gujarat Prohibition Act – No confiscation proceedings initiated under amended Section 98(2) of Prohibition Act despite seizure exceeding 20 litres – Vehicle lying idle in police custody – Held: In absence of confiscation action and to prevent deterioration of vehicle, release of vehicle ordered with stringent conditions – Power under Article 226 rightly exercised [Paras 1–8].

Confiscation – Non-Initiation of Proceedings – Despite mandatory nature of amended Section 98(2), no steps taken by prosecution for confiscation or approaching Magistrate – Held: Delay defeats purpose – Following Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala, vehicle must be released to registered owner with safeguards – Mere pendency of FIR does not justify continued seizure indefinitely [Paras 7–8].

Article 226 – Powers of High Court – High Court has wide jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to direct release of property when delay or inaction by authorities causes prejudice – Held: No bar under Section 98 in current facts where no action for confiscation was taken – Exercise of writ jurisdiction justified [Para 8].

Direction for Release – Vehicle to be released to registered owner (Ahir Enterprise) through Power of Attorney holder on furnishing solvent surety and undertakings – Future confiscation proceedings not barred – Magistrate can still initiate action under Section 98(2) if warranted – Police to photograph vehicle and prepare panchanama before release [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Vehicle Ashok Leyland Ltd UM4220/66 H CC (Goods Carrier) bearing registration No. GJ-16-AV-9994 to be released to petitioner on strict conditions – Rule made absolute – Direct service permitted [Paras 9–13].

Service Law – Recovery from Pension – Rule 2.2(a) PCS Rules – Consent Mandatory – Petitioner retired as Executive Officer from Municipal Council, Kaithal – Recovery of ₹6,63,688/- made from pension account in 2021 without prior notice or consent – Held: Recovery without consent is impermissible under Rule 2.2(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II and Rule 11 of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 – Only lawful method is through court suit if consent is not obtained – Impugned order quashed [Paras 10–13, 19].

Constitutional Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Recovery without Hearing – Recovery effected by Bank without notice or show-cause to pensioner – Held: Violative of natural justice and judicially unsustainable – Arbitrary exercise of power – Adverse order without hearing renders entire action illegal [Paras 6, 20, 23, 38].

Pension Law – Applicability of Service Rules – Rules at Time of Retirement Govern – Petitioner retired in 2016 under 1993 Pension Rules – Held: Subsequent Pension Rules, 2016 not applicable unless expressly provided – Pension governed by rules in force at time of retirement [Paras 14–15].

Recovery – Supreme Court Precedents – No Misrepresentation by Employee – Reliance placed on Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel, Jagdish Prasad Singh – Held: No recovery permissible post-retirement where payment was bona fide and without fraud/misrepresentation – Equity favours pensioner where State error caused overpayment [Paras 16–19].

Role of Bank – RBI Circular – No Authority to Recover Unilaterally – Punjab National Bank debited pensioner’s account at behest of Government without authority – RBI Circular mandates banks to act only after direction from government and not recover directly from pensioner – Held: Act of bank arbitrary and illegal [Paras 23–24].

Refixation of Pension – Scope and Limits – Rule 9.15 PCS Rules and Rule 78 HCS Pension Rules – Held: Pension once authorised cannot be revised to disadvantage of employee unless clerical error shown and notice served – Rule 9.15 is subject to Rule 2.2(a), requiring consent for recovery even after refixation – Five-year bar on revision under Rule 78 also noted [Paras 25–36].

Equity and Public Administration – Abrupt Recovery from Retiree – Court expresses concern over harshness and human cost of recovery without notice – Held: Governance must reflect procedural sensitivity and uphold retired employees’ dignity – Abrupt recovery undermines public trust and welfare administration ethos [Paras 37–38].

Relief – Impugned order dated 16.11.2022 quashed – Respondents directed to refund ₹6,63,688/- with 6% interest from date of petition – RBI directed to issue binding instructions prohibiting unauthorised recovery by agency banks from pensioners’ accounts [Paras 39–40].

Execution – Garnishee Proceedings – Warrant of Attachment – Continuing Liability – Appellant obtained ex parte money decree against Respondents – Warrant of attachment issued against Respondent No.3 (garnishee) prohibiting payments to judgment-debtor (Respondent No.1) – Garnishee allowed subsequent credits to be withdrawn despite subsisting attachment – Trial court held only balance on date of receipt of warrant (Rs.362) could be attached – Held: Garnishee bound by terms of attachment for entire validity period – Subsequent credits during currency of warrant liable to be attached – Order of trial court rejecting garnishee notice set aside [Paras 3, 10–15]

Civil Procedure – Attachment of Debtor’s Earnings – Post-attachment Credits – Interpretation of Order 21 Rule 46 CPC – Warrant of attachment remains effective until returned with execution details – Period granted in warrant (1 year) implies any funds credited within that time are liable for execution – Garnishee’s conduct in permitting withdrawals despite attachment is contrary to law – Inconsistent conduct of garnishee in depositing partial amounts further undermines defence – Attachment continues until modified or lifted by court order [Paras 10–14]

Execution – Conduct of Garnishee – Contradictory Stand – Garnishee deposited amounts post-attachment and later denied liability – Garnishee also filed affidavit agreeing to deposit more funds – Held: Such inconsistent conduct contradicts defence and affirms continuing obligation under attachment – Impugned order contrary to garnishee’s own actions [Paras 13–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of trial court rejecting garnishee notice quashed – Trial court directed to give effect to attachment as per law – Civil application disposed [Paras 15–18]

Criminal Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 212 Days – Dismissed – Applicant filed criminal revision with 212-day delay challenging order granting probation to private respondents – Delay attributed to mistaken advice regarding remedy under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Explanation vague, lacking particulars, and unsupported by any material – No genuine, exceptional, or unavoidable circumstances shown – Application dismissed [Paras 6–7.1]

Limitation – Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Liberal Approach Not Absolute – Legal Position Reiterated – Liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” cannot be stretched to condone unexplained or negligent delay – Condonation requires cogent, credible, and satisfactory explanation – Merits of case not a ground for condonation – Reliance placed on Deepak v. Noori (CRR(F)-1844-2023) and Pathapati Subba Reddy (2024 INSC 286) [Paras 4–5]

Procedural Law – Effect of Dismissal of Delay Application – Consequential Dismissal of Main Petition – Since delay was not condoned, the accompanying revision petition against probation order was also dismissed without consideration on merits [Para 8]

Decision: Application for condonation of 212-day delay dismissed – Criminal revision petition dismissed as a consequence – Pending applications, if any, also disposed.

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Charge Sustained – Accused allegedly conspired to dispossess the complainant from his land, leading to fatal assault on his son – Evidence of threats, long-standing land dispute, and coordinated movement of accused supported by CCTV footage, CDRs, and eyewitness accounts – Held: Trial court rightly framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 447, 147, 201, and other IPC provisions – Material creates grave suspicion, sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 40–55].

Criminal Law – Nature of Offence – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Prima Facie Case of Murder Established – Argument that single blow rules out murder rejected – Repeated blows with bricks and iron pipe on the deceased’s head with full force show intention to kill – Injury pattern and conduct reveal deliberate targeting – Held: No basis to convert charge to Section 304 IPC at this stage – Trial court justified in framing charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 51–58].

Criminal Conspiracy – Inference from Circumstances – Land Dispute Escalation – Shared Intent – History of land transactions and threats point to common design among accused – Execution of illegal dispossession plan amounts to conspiracy – Even non-present accused implicated by pre-event meetings and CDR data – Held: Conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and surrounding facts – Presence at spot not essential for conspiracy charge [Paras 45–50].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge of Accused – High Court Revisional Power Limited – Discharge of Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh upheld – Evidence against them not sufficient to infer intent or participation – No direct or reliable role assigned – Trial court applied correct legal test – Held: High Court will not interfere unless manifest illegality or perversity exists – Discharge justified [Paras 66–71].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Serious Offences – Bail Rejected – Bail sought on merits and medical grounds – Accused charged with murder and conspiracy – Evidence indicates continuing threat to complainant – Trial at initial stage with material witnesses pending – Medical conditions found manageable in jail – Held: Gravity of offence, conspiracy angle, and threat to complainant warrant rejection of bail [Paras 74–78].