Bail Jurisprudence – SCs & STs (PoA) Act – Grant of Bail Post-Investigation – Held: Appellant accused of caste-based violence under the SCs & STs (PoA) Act granted bail – Court considered completion of investigation and absence of apprehension of evidence tampering – Observed that allegations require examination during trial – Bail granted on conditions [Paras 8-10].

Caste-Based Offences – Prima Facie Examination – Pre-Trial Stage – Held: At the bail stage, the culpability of the accused is not to be decided – Allegations of assault and caste-based insult require evidence scrutiny during the trial – Observed that the de facto complainant’s objections were not submitted [Para 8].

Property Dispute – Criminal Allegations Arising from Civil Dispute – Held: The appellant contended that the case emanated from a property dispute and claimed title over the disputed land – Court noted this submission but emphasized that such issues require detailed adjudication during trial [Paras 4, 9].

Bail Conditions – Judicial Custody and Prevention of Tampering – Held: Appellant enlarged on bail with stringent conditions – Required to report weekly to the police station and restrained from tampering with witnesses or evidence – Non-compliance will invite prosecution for bail cancellation [Para 10].

Decision:

The appeal was allowed. The trial court's order denying bail was set aside. Bail was granted to the appellant under strict conditions, including a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties, weekly police station reporting, and prohibitions on evidence tampering.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Civil Dispute Labeled as Criminal – Abuse of Process of Law – Complaint under Sections 417 and 418 IPC alleged the manufacture of sub-standard medicines by petitioners, causing loss to respondent company – Held: Dispute emanated from a trademark license agreement and was purely civil in nature – No fraudulent or dishonest intention at inception established – Complaint found to be an attempt to give criminal color to a contractual breach – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 38-40, 44-48].

Arbitration Clause – Wide Interpretation – Applicability to Present Dispute – Agreement contained an arbitration clause covering “any doubt or question arising out of or incidental to the agreement” – Court held arbitration clause broad enough to encompass the alleged dispute regarding sub-standard medicines – Continuation of criminal prosecution inappropriate where alternative civil remedy exists [Paras 46-47].

Business Disputes – Conflation with Criminal Proceedings – Caution against converting purely commercial disputes into criminal cases – Courts must discourage misuse of criminal law to settle civil disputes – Allegations in complaint lacked prima facie ingredients of Sections 417 and 418 IPC, warranting intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 40-43, 48].

Decision: Complaint Case No. 7271 of 2021 and all consequential proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.
 

Bail – Relevance of antecedents – Applicability of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" principle – Bail Granted - The petitioner, accused of serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, argued that the case was fabricated due to marital discord and emphasized his prolonged judicial custody of 40 days and completed investigation. The Court held that antecedents, though relevant, cannot automatically deny bail. It cited precedents emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as punishment. Further detention was deemed unnecessary, and bail was granted subject to conditions [Paras 7-10].

Judicial custody – Considerations for granting bail – Impact of investigation completion - Despite opposition from the prosecution citing the petitioner's antecedents and alleged threat to witnesses, the Court noted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, which was practically complete. Held: Continued detention was unwarranted as sufficient conditions could be imposed to mitigate concerns of witness tampering and further offences [Paras 6-10].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards against misuse - The Court imposed conditions to ensure the petitioner’s compliance, including appearance before the Investigating Officer, prohibition on tampering with evidence, and surrender of passport. Violation of conditions would empower the jurisdictional court to revoke bail [Para 10].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Bonafide Need for Eviction – Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act – Landlords sought eviction of tenants/subtenants from premises at Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 for residential and commercial needs – Tenants/subtenants contested the landlord-tenant relationship and asserted lack of bonafide need – Held: Landlord-tenant relationship established – Subtenants were impleaded and contested through leave-to-defend applications – Bonafide need of landlords for residence and transport business upheld [Paras 53-64, 68-74].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act – Court's revisional power confined to verifying whether the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) acted within the law and followed proper procedure – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute findings unless there is an apparent error of law – No procedural or jurisdictional errors found in the ARC's judgment [Paras 49-52].

Bonafide Requirement – Determination of Residential and Commercial Needs – Tenanted premises required for landlords’ family, including sons seeking to establish transport businesses in Delhi – Residential need established as landlord’s son resided in rented accommodation in Greater Kailash-II – Commercial need established for transport operations – Court emphasized landlord's prerogative to decide use of premises and rejected tenants’ claims of alternate accommodation [Paras 68-74].

Subtenant's Status and Applicability of Section 14(1)(e) – Subtenants argued eviction under Section 14(1)(e) impermissible as it applies only to tenants – Held: Definition of "tenant" includes subtenants under Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act – Subtenants were impleaded, contested, and were bound by the eviction order – Case distinguished from earlier judgments on facts [Paras 55-64].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – ARC's order of eviction upheld – Landlords’ bonafide need for residential and commercial purposes and absence of alternative accommodation confirmed – No procedural or legal infirmities found in the ARC’s judgment [Paras 84-87, 97-100, 108-110].
 

Judicial Review of Speaker’s Inaction – Permissible Scope – Directions Issued Valid – Appellant contended that the High Court cannot direct the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within a timeframe – Court held that inordinate delay in deciding disqualification petitions violates constitutional mandates – Judicial review under Article 226 is permissible where the Speaker’s inaction undermines democracy – Held: Single judge's directions justified and upheld [Paras 34-38, 60-62].

Tenth Schedule – Role of Speaker as Tribunal – Judicial Superintendence Permissible – Speaker acts as a tribunal while deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule – Court relied on Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu to affirm that judicial review is confined to jurisdictional errors, mala fides, and constitutional violations – Held: Speaker’s inaction may warrant judicial interference to preserve democratic processes [Paras 39-41, 60(ii)].

Nature of Rules Under Tenth Schedule – Directory and Not Mandatory – Appellant argued the procedural rules under the Tenth Schedule are directory – Court held this does not exempt the Speaker from adhering to constitutional obligations – Delay beyond three months deemed unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 42-44, 60(vi)].

Precedents – Supreme Court’s Guidance on Disqualification Petitions – Court extensively referred to decisions in Kihoto Hollohan, Rajendra Singh Rana, Keisham Meghachandra Singh, and Subhash Desai, holding that disqualification petitions should generally be decided within three months, barring exceptional circumstances – Held: Speaker must adhere to this principle [Paras 45-48, 61].

Ratio Decidendi and Judicial Precedents – Application of Principles – Court emphasized the importance of following binding precedents and the doctrine of ratio decidendi – Observed that the Speaker must decide the petitions within a reasonable time to uphold the constitutional intent of the Tenth Schedule [Paras 54-58].

Decision: The appeals were disposed of as follows:
The common order dated 09/09/2024 passed by the single judge directing the Secretary of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to place disqualification petitions before the Speaker was set aside.
The Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly was directed to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable time, bearing in mind the pendency period, the object of the Tenth Schedule, and the Assembly's tenure.
Miscellaneous applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
 

Jurisdiction of Benches – Appeals Based on Sentence Length – Rules Clarified – Question arose whether criminal appeals with a sentence of ten years or less, traditionally heard by a Single Judge, could be transferred to a Division Bench when arising from a common trial court judgment involving cases requiring Division Bench jurisdiction (e.g., under Section 372 or 377 CrPC) – Held: Such listing before a Division Bench is valid to prevent contradictory outcomes, but does not confer jurisdiction where none existed [Paras 8-12, 18].

Adherence to Supreme Court Precedents – Principles of Coram Non Judice – Referencing Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra and Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, Court emphasized that judicial orders by an incorrect Bench are nullities, yet no similar issue arises when Division Benches hear cases meant for Single Judges [Paras 20-22].

Allocation of Benches – Avoidance of Anomalous Orders – Practice of listing all appeals arising from the same trial judgment together, including those requiring Division Bench jurisdiction, upheld to maintain judicial consistency and efficiency [Paras 23-25].

Rules vs. Practical Necessity – Procedural Amendments Suggested – Court recommended amendments to Patna High Court Rules to institutionalize the practice of grouping related appeals to Division Benches in appropriate cases [Paras 28-30].

Decision:

The reference was answered by affirming that appeals carrying sentences up to ten years can validly be heard by a Division Bench when arising from a common judgment involving related cases requiring Division Bench jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the need for amendments to ensure procedural clarity and avoid ambiguity.

Registration of Gift Deeds – Applicability of Section 22-B – Rejection of Registration Orders Upheld – Appeals against Single Judge’s order directing registration of gift deeds – Section 22-B of the Registration Act applies exclusively to sale deeds and not to deeds of gift – Court held the language of Section 22-B is clear and does not extend to gift deeds – Held: Registration authority’s refusal to register the deeds was incorrect [Paras 10-12, 20].

Interpretation of Statutes – Plain and Ordinary Meaning Rule – Section 22-B of Registration Act – Government argued for an expansive interpretation of “relating to the sale of immovable property” in Section 22-B – Court emphasized that clear statutory language must be given its plain meaning unless legislative intent suggests otherwise – Held: Section 22-B cannot be stretched to include deeds of gift [Para 15].

Registration Rules – Rule 30 of Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules – Layout Approvals Required for Alienation of Non-Agricultural Land – Although Section 22-B is inapplicable, Rule 30 allows the authority to demand subdivision plans or approved layouts before registering documents for non-agricultural land – Registration authority directed to act under Rule 30 [Paras 24-25].

Disputed Ownership – Declarations from Competent Court Required – Disputes regarding ownership of land sought to be gifted require adjudication by a competent court – Authority cannot resolve ownership disputes at the time of registration – Held: Respondent may approach appropriate forums to establish ownership rights [Para 27].

Decision:

The appeals were disposed of with the following directions:

Section 22-B of the Registration Act does not apply to deeds of gift; thus, refusal based on this section was incorrect.

The registration authority is permitted to enforce Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules for non-agricultural lands by requiring compliance with layout and subdivision approvals.

The respondent may seek necessary declarations from a competent court regarding ownership of the land intended to be gifted.

There were no orders as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Service Law - Compassionate Appointment – Inclusion of Widowed Daughter – Discriminatory Exclusion Held Unconstitutional – Petitioner, a widowed daughter, was denied compassionate appointment under BSNL’s scheme – Court held that exclusion of widowed daughters from the definition of “dependent family member” is discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, and contrary to precedents expanding the definition of family – Held: Widowed daughters who were dependent on their deceased parent must be considered eligible for compassionate appointment [Paras 25-35, 61].

Judicial Precedents – Expansive Interpretation of Family in Compassionate Appointment Cases – Relying on decisions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, including Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Meenakshi Dubey v. Madhya Pradesh Poorv Chhetra Vidut Vitran Co. Ltd., the Court noted a consistent trend in treating married and widowed daughters as part of the family for compassionate appointment purposes [Paras 38-49].

Dependency Criterion – To Be Determined on Facts – The Court clarified that the eligibility of a widowed daughter must be assessed based on her dependency on the deceased at the time of death, and non-inclusion in the guidelines alone cannot disqualify her [Paras 56-58].

BSNL’s Weightage System – Cannot Supplant Eligibility Guidelines – BSNL’s 2007 weightage system, which restricted references to unmarried daughters, was held subordinate to the broader eligibility criteria in the 1998 DoPT guidelines, which do not exclude widowed or married daughters [Paras 51-53].

Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Tribunal's order dated 13/01/2023. It directed BSNL to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment within two months, applying the weightage point system and ensuring that her widowed status does not result in exclusion.

Probate – Holograph Will – Grant of Probate Allowed – Lower Court Judgment Reversed – Appeal against rejection of probate for a holograph Will executed by testator, Sudhir Chandra Konar, on 31.12.1986 – Trial Court rejected probate citing suspicious circumstances, undue influence, and mental incapacity of the testator – High Court found the Will properly executed, attested, and aligned with the testator's intentions – Trial Court judgment set aside – Probate granted to appellant [Paras 1, 2, 58-60].

Will - Testamentary Capacity – Soundness of Mind – Section 63 of Indian Succession Act – Probate Granted – The testator was alleged to lack testamentary capacity due to Senile Dementia. Evidence revealed no symptoms of dementia at the time of the Will's execution in 1986, and the testator actively practiced law until 1996. Attesting witnesses affirmed the testator’s soundness of mind and disposing state at execution – Held: The testator had sufficient mental clarity during the Will's creation [Paras 35-37].

Suspicious Circumstances – Deprivation of Legal Heirs – Justified Disposition – Allegations arose of unnatural exclusion of certain heirs. Evidence showed the testator provided for all heirs, favoring the appellant (his younger son) based on circumstances such as proximity and care. The Will aligned with the testator’s stated intent to preserve his Burdwan residence within the family – Held: No undue influence or coercion established; the disposition was fair [Paras 42-45].

Interpolation in Will – Appointment of Executor – No Effect on Validity – The Will contained a post-execution addition appointing the appellant as executor, signed by the testator. The interpolation, being a bona fide correction, did not affect the Will’s validity – Held: Such an amendment does not invalidate the testamentary disposition [Para 49].

Execution and Registration of Will – Compliance with Section 68, Evidence Act – Probate Upheld – Witnesses attested to the execution and registration of the Will, confirming it was voluntary and free from undue influence. Minor discrepancies in witness testimony, attributed to the passage of time, did not detract from its credibility – Held: The Will was validly executed and registered [Paras 50-53].

Delay in Probate Application – Explained and Excused – The Will’s registration occurred 14 years post-execution due to logistical and familial considerations. The delay was deemed non-prejudicial – Held: Probate application delay not fatal to the case [Para 54].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Learned 5th Court, Additional District Judge, Burdwan, dated 12th March 2012, was set aside. The court held that the appellant, Deb Prosanna Konar, successfully proved the Will in accordance with law, including removing suspicious circumstances. Accordingly, probate of the Will dated 31/12/1986 of the deceased Sudhir Chandra Konar was granted to the appellant. The connected interlocutory application, I.A. No.: CAN 5 of 2024, was also disposed of. No costs were awarded.