Companies Act – Appointment of Woman Director – Section 149 – Compliance – Triable Issue – Petitioner company alleged to have violated Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013 by failing to appoint a woman director within the prescribed period ending 31st March, 2015 – Petitioners claimed appointment of Ms. Kirti Sanghavi as woman director by Board resolution dated 3rd January, 2015, but Form DIR-12 uploaded before the Registrar of Companies only on 6th October, 2015 upon payment of penalty – Petitioners failed to disclose when DIN was applied for and allotted to the newly appointed director – No reply to show cause notice produced – Held: Whether the appointment was actually made within the statutory timeframe is a triable issue requiring evidence by parties and cannot be adjudicated in revisional jurisdiction – Revision dismissed [Paras 6–11].

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope – Petitioners contended that the complaint was an abuse of process of law as they had complied with the statutory requirement and also paid the prescribed penalty – Held: In the absence of satisfactory material before this Court establishing compliance within time, the revisional application is not entertainable and the matter is to be decided by the trial court after leading of evidence – Application dismissed [Paras 3–4, 10–11].

Decision: Criminal Revisional application dismissed – Proceeding before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore to continue – Interim order, if any, vacated.

Property Law – Title by Sale Deed – Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Validity of Successive Transfers – Appellant claimed 1/3rd share in suit land on the basis of a sale deed dated 08.12.2000 executed by Harjinder Kaur, who had purchased from Baldev Singh – First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of revenue records and prior sale deeds, found that Baldev Singh had already alienated 14 kanals 13 marlas out of his total share and retained only about 8–8½ marlas at the time of the impugned sale – Held: A vendor cannot convey a better title than he himself possesses; plaintiff's claim to 2 kanals 15 marlas based on a sale deed executed beyond the vendor's remaining share is not sustainable [Paras 7-8].

Mutation Entries – Evidentiary Value – Fiscal Entry Only – Contention that sanctioned mutation in favour of appellant conferred valid title – Held: Mutation does not confer title and is merely a fiscal entry for revenue purposes; the same cannot be treated as proof of ownership [Para 9].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Suit for Declaration – Other Vendees from Common Vendor – Plaintiff sought declaration regarding specific khasra numbers forming part of a joint holding without impleading other co-sharers and vendees whose rights were directly affected – Held: Any declaration in their absence would cast a cloud on their title and lead to multiplicity of litigation; suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties [Para 10].

Second Appeal – Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Findings of First Appellate Court based on proper appreciation of documentary evidence including certified copies of earlier sale deeds, sanctioned mutations and jamabandis – Findings neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence – Held: No substantial question of law arises; no interference warranted [Para 11].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga affirmed.

SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 — Section 15A(3) — Mandatory Notice to Victim or Dependent — Bail Proceedings — Non-Compliance Renders Order Non-Est — Eight accused granted regular bail by Special Court after 25 to 43 days of custody in a case of mob lynching resulting in death of a Scheduled Caste member — Special Judge held that Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act would not attract as accused had no prior knowledge of victim's caste identity, and consequently dispensed with notice to victim's dependent — Held: When offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act are involved, even the question whether such offences attract or not cannot be decided unilaterally without issuing notice and hearing the victim or his dependent; issuance of notice under Section 15A(3) is mandatory in all proceedings under the Act including bail proceedings — Common order passed without hearing dependent of deceased is non-est in law and liable to be set aside [Paras 11–15].

BNS, 2023 — Section 103(2) — Mob Lynching — Graver Offence — New Provision — Section 103(2) of BNS, 2023 is a new provision introduced to address the menace of mob lynching; where murder is committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on grounds of race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language or personal belief, each member is liable to death or imprisonment for life — Legislature intended this offence to be treated as more serious than ordinary murder under Section 103(1) [Para 16].

Bail Cancellation — Premature Grant — Habitual Offenders — Mechanical Approach of Special Judge — Prima facie case of mob lynching at a primitive stage of investigation — Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 are habitual offenders with multiple criminal antecedents — Special Judge granted bail mechanically without considering: (i) availability of police custody during initial 60 days under Section 187 BNSS; (ii) statutory presumption of knowledge of caste identity under Section 8(c) of SC/ST (POA) Act; and (iii) adverse impact of premature bail on investigation — Held: Grant of bail was unsustainable; cancellation warranted [Para 17].

Mob Lynching — Constitutional Values — Rule of Law — Apex Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla observed that lynching is an affront to the rule of law and constitutional values; vigilantism undermines State institutions and, unless controlled, may lead to anarchy — State has a sacrosanct duty to protect citizens and curb such incidents — Hate crimes born of intolerance and prejudice cannot be tolerated [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Common order granting bail to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 set aside — Bail bonds cancelled — Respondents directed to surrender before jurisdictional court within three days — On failure to surrender, Investigating Officer at liberty to arrest — Respondents at liberty to file fresh bail applications; Special Court to adjudicate after providing notice and hearing to dependent of victim in compliance with Section 15A(3) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.

Crininal Law – Murder – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Culpable Honicide Not Anounting to Murder – Sudden Fight – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC for death of deceased caused by axe blow to the head during a dispute over stone-pelting on the previous night – Counter-case lodged by accused against deceased on the same day, and evidence of accused Prafulla having sustained injuries, lent weight to the defence plea of mutual assault – No pre-planned notive established; assault arose suddenly in the heat of the nonent during altercation – Held: Case squarely falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC; conviction of accused Prafulla nodified fron murder to culpable honicide not anounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC; sentenced to 7 years rigorous inprisonment with set-off [Paras 13, 15, 18–20].

Evidence – Onission in FIR – Names of Co-Accused Absent – Subsequent Inplication Doubtful – Informant/P.W.1 named only accused Prafulla in the written FIR and in his statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded on the very next day; names of accused Pratap and Pankaj conspicuously absent – In court, informant inproved upon original version to inplicate them – I.O. admitted the onission – Held: Onission of inportant facts affecting probabilities of the case is relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act; in absence of cogent explanation, subsequent inplication of co-accused is doubtful and cannot be accepted [Paras 16–17].

Defence Evidence – Standard of Appreciation – Preponderance of Probability – Trial court discarded defence evidence on surmises and conjectures without cogent reasons – Held: Defence evidence is to be appreciated on the principle of preponderance of probability and not on the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; court must consider whether a plausible defence has been made out – Counter-case and injury to accused Prafulla ought to have been given due inportance [Para 15].

Witness Credibility – P.W. 2 – Spot Map Discrepancy – P.W. 2 clained to be an eye-witness brushimg his teeth in front of his house when the assault took place – Spot map (Exhibit 9) showing all 14 house owners in the locality does not include the house of P.W. 2 – Held: His presence as an eye-witness becones doubtful and his testinony cannot be relied upon as that of an eye-witness [Para 11].

Weapon Discrepancy – Tangia vs. Farsa – Witnesses stated a Tangia was used; weapon sent for medical examination described as Farsa – Doctor described weapon as "Tangia (Farsa)" in Exhibit 4; I.O. also described M.O.1 as Tangia in Exhibit 6 – Held: Both Tangia and Farsa are sharp cutting weapons; discrepancy not material enough to discredit the prosecution evidence of assault by a sharp cutting weapon [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Accused Pankaj and Pratap acquitted; bail bonds discharged – Accused Prafulla's conviction nodified fron Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC; sentenced to 7 years rigorous inprisonment with set-off – Bail bonds of accused Prafulla cancelled; to be taken into custody forthwith.

Contract Law – Government Contract – Delay in Performance – Extra Expenditure – Shared Responsibility – Plaintiff contracted for construction of MVIP Kuravilangad distributory; work delayed from agreed completion date of 07.10.2008 to actual completion on 31.07.2009 due to public agitation against blasting of rocks, Panchayat stop memo, police interference, and interim injunctions in OS 187/2008 and OS 231/2008 – Held: While plaintiff could not be wholly absolved of responsibility for delay, he could not be held solely responsible; defendants also failed to take any steps to ensure smooth execution of the work – On totality of facts, plaintiff entitled to one-half of extra expenditure assessed [Paras 8-9, 13].

Expert Report – Erroneous Calculation – Addition of Tender Excess to Market Rate – Expert assessed extra expenditure at market rates prevailing during 2008-09 but erroneously added 40% tender excess thereon; since the market rate already reflected the current period cost, addition of tender excess was impermissible – Decree of trial court based on such flawed calculation liable to modification [Para 10].

Supplemental Agreements – Execution Under Compulsion – Not Binding – Defendants relied on supplemental agreements wherein plaintiff undertook to carry out extended work at original contract rate – Trial court found that refusal to execute supplemental agreements would have resulted in termination of contract – Held: Agreements executed under compelling circumstances and threat of termination cannot be enforced to negate legitimate claims for additional expenditure incurred during extended period [Para 11].

Precedent Distinguished – General Manager, Northern Railway v. Sarvesh Chopra – Relied upon by defendants to contend contractor precluded from claiming enhanced rates after undertaking not to do so – Held: On facts of present case, pinning plaintiff to original 2004 schedule of rates for work completed during 2008-09 would be harsh and inequitable; judgment not applicable [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Decree of trial court set aside and modified – Plaintiff entitled to realise ₹24,53,677/- (comprising ₹20,09,108/- being one-half of extra expenditure and ₹4,44,569/- retained amount) with interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realisation – Plaintiff also entitled to proportionate costs throughout.

Medical Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — West Bengal Medical Council — Removal from Register — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Petitioner, a Gynaecologist, found guilty of infamous professional conduct by West Bengal Medical Council following death of patient post-caesarean section; name removed from register for two years under Section 25(a)(ii) of Bengal Medical Act, 1914 — Petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Section 26 before Principal Secretary, Health Department, which was dismissed — Petitioner thereafter moved National Medical Commission under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 — Writ petition filed challenging both orders — Held: Petitioner having exhausted statutory remedies including appeal before Appellate Authority and approaching the National Medical Commission, the matter attained finality through the statutory adjudicatory machinery — Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for further statutory remedies nor can the writ court act as an appellate authority for re-appreciation of evidence — Writ petition not maintainable.

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable — No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Interim Maintenance - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 12 - Professional qualification of spouse - Petitioner-husband challenged the order of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, which modified the SDJM's order - Trial Court had granted Rs. 8,000/- per month to the son but refused maintenance to the wife on the ground that she was a practicing lawyer and Managing Director of a marriage bureau - Appellate Court modified this to award Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife and maintained the son's award from the date of application - High Court referred to the principles in Rajnesh v. Neha holding that professional qualification is not a straitjacket bar to maintenance - Court noted that the objective is to ensure the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution - Court found the wife's maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- justified but reduced the son's maintenance from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- as the husband was already bearing education expenses - Held - Appellate order modified - son's maintenance reduced to Rs. 5,000/- - wife's maintenance affirmed at Rs. 5,000/- - both payable from the date of application - [Paras 1-11].

Evidence Law - Assessment of Income - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 12 - Proof of independent source of income - Husband produced partnership firm and registration certificates to show wife was Managing Director of Celestial Marriage Bureau and a practicing lawyer since 2020 - Appellate Court held that the plea of wife having no adequate means was mechanically negated by the Trial Court - High Court held that while subjectivity is inescapable in quantifying compensation - the focus remains on maintaining the standard of living of the matrimonial home - Held - Professional status does not automatically disentitle a spouse to interim support - [Paras 6-9].

Procedural Law - Maintainability - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 29 - Revision vs Appeal - Revisions preferred under Sections 397/401 CrPC against orders passed in appeal under the DV Act - Held - The question of maintainability of Criminal Revisions under Section 29 of the DV Act is left open - parties directed to cooperate for final disposal of the main petition - [Para 10].

Decision: Criminal Revisions disposed of – Maintenance for the son modified from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month – Maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month for the wife upheld – Payments effective from 23.02.2023.

Bail — PMLA — Violent Obstruction of Official Search — Influential Accused — Threat to Witnesses — Petitioner Sk. Sahajhan, alleged mastermind, prima facie found to have mobilised a violent mob of 800–1000 persons through 30 calls made between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. to obstruct ED search operations at his premises; mob attacked ED and CRPF officials with weapons, damaged government vehicles, and robbed personal belongings causing grievous injuries — Petitioner Sk. Alomgir, brother of first petitioner, allegedly involved in mobilising the crowd and keeping unlicensed firearms at an associate's house — Both petitioners in custody for a considerable period — Held: Sufficient incriminating material prima facie establishes leading role of both petitioners; they are extremely influential and dreaded persons; possibility of tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses cannot be ruled out at the current stage of investigation — Bail rejected [Paras 18–23].

Bail — Prolonged Incarceration — Not a Sufficient Ground Where Investigation Ongoing — Petitioners contended that custody of approximately two years without conclusion of trial amounts to punitive detention — 88 witnesses to be examined, 61 documents and 26 material exhibits relied upon; supplementary charge sheet yet to be filed; further investigation pending — Held: Though courts have frowned upon prolonged detention turning punitive, bail applications must be decided on the facts of each case; where substantial incriminating material exists and witness intimidation is a real threat, prolonged custody alone is not a sufficient ground for bail [Paras 21–23].

Witness Statements — Delayed Recording — Credibility — Statements of witnesses recorded by CBI after the case was made over, i.e., more than three months after the incident — Petitioners contended statements are the product of tutoring and afterthought — Held: Whether delay strikes at the credibility of statements is a matter to be dealt with at the appropriate stage of trial; observation in bail proceedings cannot be construed as an expression of opinion on merits [Para 20].

Co-Accused on Bail — Not Similarly Circumstanced — Petitioners argued that co-accused who led the mob have been granted bail — Held: Co-accused granted bail are not similarly circumstanced with the petitioners who are the principal accused; bail granted to one co-accused was on account of severe illness of his minor daughter; CBI has taken steps for cancellation of even that bail — Parity argument not available [Para 20].

Decision: Bail applications of both Sk. Sahajhan @ Sahajhan Sekh (CRM (DB) 554/2025) and Sk. Alomgir (CRM (DB) 650/2025) rejected — Observations limited to bail consideration and not to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case.

Public Procurement – Tender Conditions – Geographical Restriction – RBSN Food Items Supply – Petitioners challenged Clause A(1) requiring bidders to own manufacturing unit in Uttar Pradesh prior to tender floating date as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution – Respondents justified condition on grounds of timely supply, quality control, supervision, prevention of pilferage of subsidised raw materials (wheat and rice allocated by Government of India), short shelf life of three months, and compliance with Allahabad High Court directions in Shipra Devi case – Raw materials provided at subsidised rates on ex-godown basis from FCI depots in Uttar Pradesh – Held: Condition reasonable and not arbitrary – Formulation of tender conditions is prerogative of State – Courts interfere only if policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide – Physical supervision and inspection feasible when units located within State – Condition ensures permanency, timely delivery within 15 days of award, and uninterrupted supply to 16 million beneficiaries under National Food Security Act, 2013 [Paras 62-72]

Tender Conditions – Annual Turnover Requirement – Clause A(2) requiring minimum annual turnover of Rs.75 crores from THR supplies for each of last three financial years challenged as arbitrary – Total tender value approximately Rs.2,768 crores – State divided into 9 clusters with potential award of two clusters per bidder totaling approximately Rs.600 crores – Held: Turnover requirement rational and proportionate to ensure bidder possesses experience and financial capacity for large-scale uninterrupted supply – Not arbitrary or tailored to favour certain suppliers [Para 74]

Eligibility Criteria – Pending Litigation Disqualification – Clause A(12) disqualifying bidders with pending legal/criminal cases or disputes associated with THR supplies challenged as arbitrary and violating constitutional right to legal remedies – Petitioners had pending arbitration proceedings and recovery disputes with State of Uttar Pradesh – One petitioner had award in its favour with State having filed Section 34 petition – No blacklisting or debarment of petitioners – No adjudicated finding of deficiency against petitioners – Court observed prima facie merit in petitioners' submission that disqualification based solely on pendency without adjudicated findings of guilt or deficiency appears unjust – However issue became academic as petitioners failed to comply with mandatory Clause A(1) regarding manufacturing unit location [Paras 76-82]

Judicial Review – Tender Conditions – Scope of Interference – Courts cannot substitute their view for that of employer on what tender conditions should be – Courts interfere only if policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias – Tendering authority entitled to pragmatic adjustments based on particular circumstances – Greater latitude to be conceded to State authorities in formulating conditions for ensuring public welfare schemes – Public interest in timely fulfillment and quality of work must be safeguarded – Technical evaluation by courts impermissible – Principle of restraint to be followed when decision consonant with tender document purpose [Paras 71, 83]

General Financial Rules – Compliance – Petitioners challenged non-compliance with Rules 159, 160 and 161 of GFR 2017 regarding mandatory e-publishing on Central Public Procurement Portal and Government e-Marketplace – Court did not specifically adjudicate this challenge given dismissal on other grounds [Paras 19-21]

Decision: All three writ petitions dismissed – Tender conditions upheld as reasonable and not arbitrary – Pending applications also dismissed.