Writ Jurisdiction – Locus Standi – Shareholders of Allottee Company – Petitioners claiming inchoate rights based on alleged 50% shareholding sought to challenge actions of KIADB permitting sub-lease – Held: Shareholders have no proprietary right over assets of the company – No enforceable legal right shown – Petitioners not “persons aggrieved” for invoking Article 226 [Paras 9, 15–16].

Public Law Remedy – Private Commercial Dispute – Petitioners’ grievance stemmed from investment and shareholding dispute of 2004 pending before Commercial Court – Attempt to cloak private dispute as public law issue impermissible – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle personal scores or gain leverage in commercial negotiations [Paras 5, 11, 21, 32].

KIAD Act – Sub-Lease Permission – Sections 34 and 34-B – KIADB granted permission to sub-lease 25 acres pursuant to enquiry ordered by Division Bench – Sub-lease permitted under Clause 11(a) of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement – Petitioners having no statutory role in KIADB’s decision-making cannot assail such permission [Paras 3.3, 6, 13].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench Decisions – Earlier Single Bench view on locus diluted by Division Bench – Subsequent Coordinate Bench categorically held petitioners lack locus – Held: Subsequent Bench bound by coordinate Bench judgment unless stayed or set aside – Entertaining petitions would violate settled principles of judicial discipline [Paras 13–14].

Precedent – Ratio Decidendi – Coordinate Bench Authority – Reliance placed on Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India – Coordinate Bench decisions binding on Benches of equal strength – Remedy, if any, lies before Division Bench and not by re-agitating identical issues before Single Judge [Paras 14–15].

Writ of Certiorari / Mandamus – Threshold Bar – Absence of Locus – Once petitioners fail on locus, Court cannot examine merits of impugned permission or sub-lease deed – Held: Petitions liable to be rejected at threshold [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Writ Petition Nos. 25744 of 2025 and 25894 of 2025 dismissed – Petitioners held to have no locus standi to challenge permission granted by KIADB or sub-lease executed between respondents – All interim orders vacated.

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate court can interfere only when discretion exercised by trial court is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles – If the view taken by trial court is a possible view, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 66–68, 75].

Contract – Memorandum of Understanding for Development of Immovable Property – MOU not signed by all co-owners – No power of attorney in favour of signatory co-owner – Held: MOU not binding or enforceable against non-signatory owners – No prima facie enforceable right created in favour of builder [Paras 16–17, 26–27, 69].

Stamp Act & Registration Act – Unstamped and Unregistered MOU – Clauses creating ownership rights in immovable property – MOU providing for transfer of 42% ownership in land and superstructure – Held: Document compulsorily registrable and chargeable with stamp duty – Unstamped and unregistered MOU inadmissible in evidence and incapable of conferring legal rights unless defect cured [Paras 18–19, 39–46, 70].

Specific Relief – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Absence of Prayer for Specific Performance or Declaration – Plaintiff seeking to restrain true owners from dealing with property – Held: Suit for injunction simpliciter not maintainable when equally efficacious remedy of specific performance available – Bar under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act attracted [Paras 47–51, 72].

Possession – Builder Claiming Possession under MOU – Clause showing possession as mere licence for construction – No transfer of possession or interest – Held: Builder not in settled or lawful possession – Injunction cannot be granted against true owners [Paras 19, 52–54, 71].

Arbitration Clause – Effect on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Mere existence of arbitration clause does not bar civil suit – No application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed – Parties waived arbitration – Trial court’s finding on lack of jurisdiction held erroneous but not affecting final outcome [Paras 55–61, 74].

Equitable Relief – Injunction – Discretionary Nature – Plaintiff capable of being compensated by damages – MOU containing penal clauses for monetary compensation – Held: No irreparable injury made out – Balance of convenience not in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 64–65, 75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order rejecting ad-interim injunction affirmed – Interim status quo order vacated – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously – Observations confined to appeal and not to prejudice trial [Paras 76–79].

Rape and Murder of Five-Year-Old Child – Brutal Sexual Assault using Knife – DNA and Circumstantial Evidence Complete – Conviction under BNS and POCSO Affirmed – Case falling in “Rarest of Rare” – Death Sentence Confirmed.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder of Minor Child – Brutal Sexual Assault – Conviction Affirmed – Deceased girl aged five years subjected to extreme sexual violence, including use of knife to enlarge vaginal opening, causing fatal pelvic injuries – Body concealed in plastic water tank inside accused’s residence – Medical evidence conclusively proved homicidal death following sexual assault – Held: Conviction under BNS and POCSO Act justified and free from perversity [Paras 10–13, 32].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Complete – Exclusive Possession and Conduct of Accused – Dead body recovered from bathroom tank of flat occupied by accused with his family – Accused failed to offer any explanation for presence of corpse in premises under his control – Conduct before and after incident, including concealment of body, pointed unerringly towards guilt – Chain of circumstances complete, excluding every hypothesis except guilt [Paras 14–16, 28–31].

Discovery under Section 23, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Disclosure statement of accused led to recovery of blood-stained clothes and weapon (knife) from his residence – Only that portion of statement leading to discovery admissible – Recovery corroborated by independent witnesses – Reliance placed on Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra and Palukuri Kottaya principle [Paras 17–20].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – DNA Analysis – Scientific Corroboration – DNA profiles from deceased’s clothing, pillow, shawl and plastic tank matched with accused’s blood sample – Parentage of deceased established through DNA – Minor absence of Y-STR profile from vaginal swabs not fatal to prosecution case – DNA evidence provided conclusive link between accused and crime [Paras 24–26].

Mental Health Defence – Rejected – Plea of bipolar disorder or mental incapacity not substantiated – Medical expert clarified accused was capable of understanding nature of acts and defending himself – Depression due to incarceration not equivalent to legal insanity – No benefit of diminished responsibility available [Para 27].

Appellate Review – No Reappreciation Warranted – Trial Court’s findings based on cogent oral, documentary and scientific evidence – No material contradictions or illegalities shown – Conviction affirmed [Paras 31–32].

Death Penalty – Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances – Balance-Sheet Test – Victim a helpless five-year-old child – Manner of assault barbaric, grotesque and diabolical – Use of knife to cause fatal genital injuries – Post-crime conduct of concealing body – Accused a repeat offender with criminal antecedents – Mitigating factors such as family responsibilities and socioeconomic background insufficient – Held: Case squarely falls within “rarest of rare” category [Paras 35–41].

Sentencing Jurisprudence – Article 21 – Collective Conscience of Society – Capital punishment permissible where alternative option unquestionably foreclosed – Reliance placed on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Death sentence neither arbitrary nor disproportionate – Confirmation warranted [Paras 37–43].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction affirmed – Reference answered – Death sentence confirmed – Records directed to be returned to Trial Court forthwith.

Civil Law – Advocate Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Application under Section 151 CPC to strike down commissioner’s report – Held: Commissioner’s report is only a piece of evidence and an aid to the Court – It cannot be struck down merely on allegations of collusion or misconduct unless proved by cogent evidence – Objections to report must be examined during trial through evidence and cross-examination [Paras 8, 27–34].

Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Commissioner’s report forms part of record and is non-adjudicatory in nature – Court may accept, reject, vary or order further inquiry – Report does not bind the Court and is subject to scrutiny along with other evidence – Law reiterated [Paras 27–30].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference with Interlocutory Orders – High Court will not interfere unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – Order refusing to strike down commissioner’s report based on settled principles does not warrant interference [Paras 34–36].

Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Process – Use of AI-Generated Citations – Trial Court relied on non-existent rulings generated by AI tools – Judicial Officer candidly reported bona fide mistake and lack of intent – Held: Mere reference to non-existent citations does not vitiate an order if the correct principles of law are applied and conclusions are otherwise legally sound [Paras 13–15, 25–26, 35–36].

Artificial Intelligence – Cautionary Guidelines – AI may assist in research and organization but lacks judicial reasoning – Courts and advocates must independently verify citations and authorities from authentic sources – Reliance on unverified AI-generated material may undermine integrity of judicial process – Emphasised [Paras 15–24].

Commissioner’s Report – Allegations of Collusion – Burden of Proof – Mere assertions of collusion or deviation from High Court directions insufficient – Such allegations must be established by clear evidence – Appropriate stage for examination is during trial, not at interlocutory stage [Paras 8, 33–34].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 19.08.2025 upheld – No illegality or jurisdictional error found – No order as to costs – Pending interlocutory applications closed [Paras 36–37].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Interim Compensation – Section 143-A – Trial court directed accused to pay 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation – Accused denied issuance of cheque, denied signature and existence of bank account – Held: Power under Section 143-A is discretionary and can be exercised only upon prima facie satisfaction of ingredients of Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–18].

Cheque Dishonour – Prima Facie Case – Burden of Proof – Though statutory presumption arises once execution of cheque is admitted – In present case accused specifically denied issuance and signature on cheque – Bank Manager (PW2) testified that cheque account belonged to a third person and not to accused – Defence found prima facie plausible – Interim compensation not warranted at this stage [Paras 22–25].

Evidence – Bank Testimony – Account Not of Accused – PW2, Branch Manager of concerned bank, stated that cheque account was in name of another individual – Supports defence that accused had no account in concerned bank – Serious disputed questions of fact requiring full trial – Grant of interim compensation held imprudent [Paras 23–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – While revisional powers are limited – Interference permissible where trial court fails to properly apply statutory parameters under Section 143-A – Impugned order granting interim compensation set aside as not based on correct prima facie evaluation [Paras 20, 25–26].

Criminal Proceedings – Expeditious Trial – Cheque bounce case pending since 2021 – Trial court requested to endeavour to complete trial expeditiously considering pendency and nature of dispute [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/09/2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari directing payment of interim compensation of 20% of cheque amount quashed and set aside – Trial to proceed on merits expeditiously [Paras 26–28].

Departmental Inquiry – Appointment of Inquiry Officer – Retired Public Servant – Inquiry conducted by retired Deputy Secretary appointed as Inquiry Authority – Challenge based on Rule 11(2) of EIA Rules contending that only serving public servant can be appointed – Held: Expression “public servant” in Rule 11(2) includes retired public servant – No express or implied exclusion in Rules – Appointment valid [Paras 33–55].

Service Law – Interpretation of Disciplinary Rules – Doctrine of Exclusion – Exclusion of retired officers must be expressly provided or flow by necessary implication – Rule 11(2) of EIA Rules contains no such exclusion – Applying principles laid down in Union of India v. Alok Kumar – Retired officer remunerated for inquiry falls within ambit of “public servant” under Section 21 IPC [Paras 43–54].

Rule 11(4), EIA Rules – Personal Hearing – Scope and Stage – Requirement to ask delinquent employee whether he desires to be heard in person operates at stage immediately after service of charge-sheet – Personal hearing contemplated during inquiry proceedings, not post submission of inquiry report – No requirement of separate personal hearing by Disciplinary Authority after inquiry report if findings accepted – Learned Single Judge erred in contrary interpretation [Paras 59–73].

Principles of Natural Justice – Compliance – Charged officer participated in inquiry proceedings – Supplied with inquiry report and afforded opportunity to submit representation – Full compliance with procedural safeguards under EIA Rules – No violation of natural justice established [Paras 68–70, 78].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Scope – Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence – Findings of guilt recorded after consideration of evidence – Not a case of “no evidence” – Reliance on Bhupenderpal Singh Gill held misconceived [Paras 74–77].

Distinguishing Precedents – Kunj Behari Misra and Yoginath D. Bagde – Requirement of opportunity arises only when Disciplinary Authority disagrees with findings of Inquiry Authority – No such disagreement in present case – Said judgments inapplicable [Para 79].

Decision – Letters Patent Appeals – Appeal by employer (LPA 1045/2024) allowed – Appeal by employee (LPA 313/2024) dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Punishment order and appellate order restored – No order as to costs [Paras 80–82].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – Ad-interim Mandatory Injunction – “Status quo ante” direction restoring earlier state of affairs – Special Judge directed parties to “maintain status quo ante as on the date of filing of Section 9 petition” without recording reasons – Held: such ad-interim mandatory injunction cannot be granted lightly and must be supported by justifiable reasons and prima facie finding that status quo was altered and justice demands restoration – Impugned non-speaking order unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 25-33, 47].

Injunctions – Status quo and Status quo ante – Meaning – “Status quo” means existing state of affairs at the relevant time – “Status quo ante” means state of affairs prior to the existing state and necessarily involves disturbing present position to restore the previous one – Held: order to maintain “status quo ante” operates as mandatory direction and therefore requires higher scrutiny and reasons [Paras 27-31].

Judicial Orders – Reasons – Necessity – “Reasons are the life of law” – Orders must disclose application of mind – Litigant entitled to know why relief is granted/declined – Held: absence of reasons vitiates judicial order; reasons cannot be substituted later through arguments/affidavits [Paras 32-35, 39-40].

Administrative/Statutory Law Principles – Validity of order must stand on reasons contained in the order – Supplementation barred – Held: order can be judged only on reasons stated therein; fresh reasons cannot be supplied subsequently (Mohinder Singh Gill principle) – Therefore, respondent’s attempt to justify “status quo ante” order on alleged violation of prior directions/lease terms rejected at appellate stage [Paras 38-40].

Commercial Appeals – Maintainability – Appeal against ad-interim order during pendency of Section 9 petition – Registry objection as to maintainability overruled and appeal held maintainable [Para 24].

Lease Dispute – Possession controversy – Appellants claimed possession taken pursuant to lease termination and re-entry clauses and Section 68, Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 – Respondent asserted possession not taken as per lease and statutory procedure – Held: such contested factual/legal issues should be examined by Special Judge in pending Section 9 petitions; appellate court confines itself to legality of impugned ad-interim order [Paras 36-44].

Precedent – Bank Guarantee principles not applicable – Reliance on (2025) 10 SCC 176 (Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.) distinguished as it related to restraint on invocation of bank guarantee when Section 9 matter ripe for hearing – Present case concerns ad-interim mandatory “status quo ante” direction and hence no benefit to respondent [Paras 48-49].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned ad-interim “status quo ante” order dated 19.12.2025 (extended subsequently) set aside (judgment records setting aside at Para 51) – Special Judge directed to decide CAOP Nos.37 & 38 of 2025 under Section 9 of the 1996 Act on the date already fixed (27.01.2026) in accordance with law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications, if any, closed [Paras 51-53].

Service Law – Assistant Teacher – Appointment Obtained by Fraud – Cancellation After 15 Years of Service – Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 and continued in service for nearly 15 years – Appointment cancelled by District Basic Education Officer on verification of records and STF enquiry finding educational and domicile certificates forged and belonging to another person – Held: Length of service does not sanctify an appointment obtained by fraud – Fraud vitiates everything [Paras 2–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Fraudulent Appointment – Plea of violation of principles of natural justice rejected – Where appointment is secured on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, no detailed enquiry or opportunity of hearing is required – Beneficiary of fraud cannot invoke protections of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [Paras 5, 7].

Judicial Review – Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Though alternative remedy of appeal was available, writ petition not pressed on that ground at final stage – Court held that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar where plea of denial of opportunity of hearing is raised – Nevertheless, on merits, no interference warranted [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Fraudulent Appointments – Consistent View of High Court – Reliance placed on earlier decisions holding that appointments obtained by fraud are void ab initio and can be cancelled without departmental enquiry – Fraud unravels all acts and confers no enforceable right [Para 5].

Public Employment – Education System – Systemic Fraud – Court expressed serious concern over large-scale appointments of Assistant Teachers on forged certificates with collusion or connivance of officials – Such illegal appointments undermine purity of education system and prejudice students’ interest, which is paramount [Paras 8–9].

Directions – State-wide Scrutiny – Mandamus Issued – Principal Secretary, Basic Education directed to conduct comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State – Action to include cancellation of fraudulent appointments, recovery of salary wherever permissible, and disciplinary/penal action against erring officials – Exercise to be completed preferably within six months [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Cancellation order upheld – Mandatory directions issued to State authorities for State-wide verification and action against fraudulent appointments – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order for immediate compliance [Paras 7, 10–12].