Criminal Contempt – Attack on Advocate Commissioners – Interference with Administration of Justice – Held Guilty – Court-appointed Advocate Commissioners were assaulted by a mob while executing commission in CS(OS) 4024/2014 concerning counterfeit Samsung products – Several Advocates sustained grievous injuries and were forced to abandon commission – Held: Obstruction of Court-appointed Commissioners amounts to direct interference with administration of justice – Such acts undermine judicial authority and cannot be condoned [Paras 1-29, 75-82].

Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction – Standard of Proof – Wilfulness Essential – Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature – Disobedience must be wilful, intentional and calculated – Mere bystanders or uninformed persons without knowledge of Court orders cannot be punished for criminal contempt though they may face IPC trial – Only persons shown to have incited or participated with knowledge of Court orders were convicted [Paras 69-74, 76-78].

Plea of Alibi – Not Accepted – Respondents 1, 4 and 13 claimed absence during the incident – Pleas rejected – Affidavits and circumstances showed they had knowledge of Court orders and incited mob violence to thwart commission – Physical absence did not absolve responsibility [Para 80].

Decision – Respondents 1 (Rajullah Khan), 2 (Asraf Ali), 4 (Nasrul Haque), 10 (Saheb Alam), 11 (Rashid Iqbal), 13 (Rumaish Akhtar), 17 (Niyaz Ahmed), 18 (Md. Asif), 21 (Anwar Hossain), 22 (Lalchand Khan), 24 (Nishar Ali) and 27 (Ajmatullah Khan) held guilty of criminal contempt – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one day and fine of Rs. 2,000 each – Remaining respondents discharged – Observations confined to contempt proceedings, independent of pending IPC trials [Paras 82-88].

Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Deemed NOC under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034 – Petition Allowed - Developer sought implementation of approved SRA scheme including D.P. Road occupants as PAPs, but faced obstruction despite fulfilling pre-conditions including deposit of rent and eligibility certification – Held: MCGM’s NOC was deemed granted after 60 days under Regulation 2.8 – refusal to issue CC was unjustified [Paras 2-22, 27].

Administrative Interference – Political Influence in Executive Action – Directions Quashed - Complaint by local MLA opposing LOI was found to be a proxy attempt by a rival developer – Minister's intervention through a hearing notice was beyond jurisdiction and without legal basis – Held: Such executive interference without authority is illegal – notice dated 14.05.2025 and consequential actions quashed [Paras 6, 21-24, 28-30, 36(C)].

Consent and Compliance – Compliance with Circular No. 144 – Validated - Objections to lack of 51% consent and area variance rejected – Held: Developer had over 54% consent even including PAPs – SRA had approved fresh proposal due to inability to independently develop D.P. Road – LOI and IOA validly reinstated as per earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions [Paras 14-18].

Execution of Eviction – Failure by Authorities to Act – Directions Issued - Despite confirmed eviction orders upheld by AGRC, Respondent Authorities failed to execute evictions, citing political pressure – Held: Authorities directed to execute eviction and take all steps for time-bound implementation of the scheme [Paras 20, 23, 36(D)].

Undertakings to Supreme Court – Binding Nature – Developer's Duty - The Petitioner had given an undertaking before the Supreme Court to rehabilitate 164 original and 47 PAP slum dwellers – Held: That undertaking must be honoured in full – directions issued for finalisation of Annexure-II including certified PAPs [Paras 9, 24, 36(E)].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed - Hearing notice dated 14.05.2025 issued by Minister quashed – Respondents directed to finalise Annexure-II, issue Commencement Certificate and ensure implementation of SRA Scheme within stipulated time in accordance with directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and prior judicial orders – Costs imposed on Respondent No. 9 for frivolous litigation [Paras 36(A)-(F)].

Money Laundering – Bail on Medical Grounds – Section 45(1) PMLA – Interim Bail Granted – The petitioner, suffering from Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 12, a rare and incurable neurodegenerative disorder, sought bail on grounds of being “sick and infirm” – Medical Board confirmed severe physical and cognitive disabilities – Held: The petitioner falls within the exception under the proviso to Section 45(1) and is not required to meet the twin bail conditions – Interim bail granted till 15.11.2025 [Paras 2, 10-15, 17].

Custodial Treatment vs. Medical Needs – Jail Facilities Inadequate – Quality of Treatment Differential – The Court noted that jail authorities were unable to provide the level of continuous and prolonged care required for the petitioner’s condition – Citing Naresh Goyal’s case, it was held that treatment as a free citizen is qualitatively different from custodial care – Humanitarian grounds warranted release [Paras 11, 14].

Interpretation of PMLA – Proviso to Section 45(1) – Scope and Applicability – The Court held that the exemption under the proviso to Section 45(1) extends only to serious illnesses which cannot be adequately treated in custody – Once the exemption is applicable, the triple test under Section 45(2) or CrPC does not need to be satisfied – Authorities cited by ED distinguished on facts [Paras 8-13].

Decision – Interim Bail Granted on Medical Grounds – Petition Allowed – The Court found the petitioner’s condition to fall within the statutory exception for bail under the PMLA – Held: Petitioner to be released on interim bail upon furnishing bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties (one local), subject to strict conditions including cooperation with trial court, non-tampering with evidence, and restricted residence – Interim bail to continue till 15th November, 2025 [Paras 15-17].

Civil Law - Review – Scope and Limitation – Appeal Cannot Be Reargued – The Appellant filed a Review Application seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of his probate appeal – Held: Review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used to reargue the case or replace conclusions already arrived at after due adjudication – Application dismissed for want of any error apparent on record [Paras 25-27].

Probate – Proof of Will – Twin Conditions under Section 69 Not Fulfilled – Appellant failed to prove that the signature on the Will was in the handwriting of the Testatrix – Mere absence of cross-examination or proof of attesting witness’s signature insufficient – Held: Both conditions under Section 69 (attesting witness and Testatrix signature) are mandatory – Review dismissed [Paras 23, 27, 29-33].

Presumption under Section 90 – Will Not Thirty Years Old at Filing – Argument that Will was 30 years old and hence presumed genuine under Section 90 of the Evidence Act rejected – Held: Date of filing probate petition in 2000 is relevant; Will dated 1972 did not meet threshold at the time – Presumption not applicable [Para 34].

Objections by Legal Heirs – Absence Does Not Displace Legal Requirement – Though Respondent No.3 did not file objections initially, Court held that absence of objections cannot replace legal requirement of proving execution of Will – Argument already addressed in earlier judgment – Review on this ground also not maintainable [Paras 12, 28].

*Decision – Review Application Dismissed – Judgment Upheld – Court held no error apparent on face of record – Mandatory statutory requirements under Section 69 not satisfied – Review dismissed and earlier dismissal of probate appeal upheld [Paras 27, 35].

Civil Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Counterclaim Proceeded – Appeal by Plaintiff Abandoned - Plaintiff failed to appear, resulting in dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution – However, defendant’s counterclaim for ₹1.68 crores was entertained as it was filed with appropriate stamp duty and supported by evidence – Held: Defendant permitted to proceed with counterclaim despite dismissal of original suit [Paras 2-4].

Counterclaim – Promissory Note and Deed of Undertaking – Execution Admitted – Counterclaim Decreed - Defendant relied on Ex.D1 (promissory note for ₹1.68 crores) and Ex.D2 (deed of undertaking) both executed by the plaintiff – Cheques issued by plaintiff were dishonoured and police complaint resulted in registration of FIR – Plaintiff did not appear to refute documents – Held: Counterclaim proved through oral and documentary evidence; decree granted as prayed for [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Plaintiff Misused Blank Signed Promissory Notes – FIR Registered – Supporting Evidence Marked - Defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had collected funds in a fraudulent scheme involving auctioned goods purportedly through the Central Excise Department – Supporting cheques and their dishonour established through Exs.D3 to D10 – Criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC pending – Held: Sufficient material to support counterclaim of misuse and liability [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Law of Indemnity – Affirmation of Ownership and Inducement – Defendant Entitled to Recover Losses - Citing Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bingham 66, court reiterated that a person misrepresenting authority or ownership and inducing another into transactions is liable to compensate – Held: Defendant entitled to recover loss from plaintiff under indemnity principles [Para 8].

Decision – Counterclaim Decreed – ₹1.68 Crores with Costs – Suit Dismissed – Judgment for Defendant - Plaintiff’s suit dismissed without trial – Defendant’s counterclaim allowed based on unrefuted evidence – Judgment and decree granted for ₹1.68 crores with costs [Para 9].

Service Law - Departmental Proceedings – Scope of Punishment under Section 11 CRPF Act – Dismissal Set Aside – Respondent constable was dismissed from service after being found under influence of alcohol and negligently damaging a cycle while on duty – Disciplinary action taken under Section 11 of the CRPF Act meant for minor punishments – Held: Dismissal being a major penalty was disproportionate where the incident caused no injury or major damage and evidence was inconclusive regarding intoxication during duty – Principles of proportionality and appropriate categorisation of offence under CRPF Act discussed – Dismissal order rightly set aside [Paras 2-5, 13-17].

Proportionality of Punishment – Judicial Review – Award of Minor Punishment Permissible under Section 11 – Inquiry report failed to conclusively establish intoxication while on duty; evidence of co-passenger exonerated respondent – Medical opinion based solely on clinical observation, not backed by blood test – Reliance placed on precedents like Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Giriraj Sharma v. Union of India to hold that extreme penalty was unwarranted – Held: Interference justified where penalty shocks the conscience and violates proportionality [Paras 10-12, 18-23].

Delay and Laches – Appellants’ Inaction Noted – No Diligent Prosecution by Union of India – Appeal filed with delay, restored after 4 years of dismissal for non-prosecution – Court declined to remand due to protracted litigation of over 18 years – Held: Respondent not to be penalised for appellants’ procedural lapses – Relief moulded to avoid further litigation [Paras 25-27].

Relief – Reinstatement with Limited Back Wages – Considering respondent's age and pending time for superannuation, Court directed reinstatement with 25% back wages and all notional benefits, including pension – Dismissal not to affect computation of retiral dues – Held: Appropriate relief moulded in equity without remanding matter back to Disciplinary Authority [Paras 28-30].

Criminal Law - Preventive Relief – Quashing of Notice - Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Political Vendetta Allegation – Petitions Dismissed - Petitioners sought protection from arrest and quashing of notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIRs involving NDPS and Prevention of Corruption Act alleging political harassment after dissociating from ruling party – Held: As petitioners are not named accused and only summoned as witnesses, no direction for prior notice before arrest can be issued – Search warrants and investigation held valid – Petitioners have liberty to seek anticipatory bail if nominated as accused [Paras 5, 6, 8-11].

Police Powers – Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Improper Use – No Blanket Relief - Reliance on Calcutta High Court judgment in Sutapa Adhikari was held misplaced – Supreme Court ruling in Gopichand Ramchandani applied – High Court cannot impose precondition of notice before arrest as it curtails police authority – Directions to issue prior notice before arrest set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Investigation Process – Search Warrants – Validity Upheld – Allegations of malice and political pressure were not supported by evidence – Searches were based on proper warrants issued before petitioner’s political shift – Petitioners failed to appear before SIT despite notice – Held: Investigation proceeded lawfully, and petitioners’ apprehension of arrest without being accused was baseless [Paras 4, 5.1, 7].

Decision – Both Petitions Dismissed – Court refused to issue any preventive directions or quash the notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners directed to avail remedies under law if later nominated as accused [Paras 10-11].

Rent—Order 15-A CPC—Scope of deposit obligation—Fixation of rent disputed—Second eventuality under O.15-A attracted—Upon judicial fixation, tenant must deposit arrears computed on the fixed rent up to the date of fixation and continue to deposit future rent as it falls due—Trial Court’s provisional fixation at ₹20,000 p.m. with arrears ₹21,10,000 from 16-04-2016 to 31-01-2025 sustained [Paras 10, 13-15].

Procedure—Application titled under S.151 CPC—Substance over form—Application treated as under O.15-A CPC having regard to pleadings, arguments, and treatment by Trial Court and High Court—Label of provision not determinative [Paras 8-9,12-13].

Eviction suit—Interim monetary directions—Prior remand—Earlier CRP (No. 447/2024) set aside ₹30,000 p.m. and directed enquiry to fix reasonable rent; Trial Court thereafter fixed ₹20,000 p.m. provisionally—No interference warranted in revision [Paras 2-3, 15].

Practice & Procedure—Striking off defence—Observation by Trial Court—Though beyond prayer, merely reiterative of O.15-A consequence; any actual striking off requires a separate order—No jurisdictional error [Para 7].

Decision—Civil Revision Petition dismissed—No order as to costs—Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Cheating & Breach of Trust – Settlement through MOU – Complainant alleged misuse of signatures and cheating of ₹4 crores – FIR 355/2008 registered – During investigation, parties entered into MOU (14.06.2008) where petitioners paid ₹5 crores in full and final settlement, both agreed to withdraw civil/criminal cases – Once complainant accepted benefit, he cannot later approbate and reprobate by filing fresh complaints – Criminal proceedings for same allegations unsustainable [Paras 7-11].

Closure Report – Effect – FIR 355/2008 closed as civil in nature, accepted by Trial Court on 05.08.2011 – Protest petition later dismissed for default – Subsequent protest petition after long delay impermissible – Once closure report accepted, criminal proceedings attain finality – Fresh complaints barred [Paras 9, 12, 13].

Further Investigation – Limits – Trial Court ordered reinvestigation u/s 156(3) CrPC in 2018 – Held improper – Power to direct further investigation is extraordinary and sparingly exercisable – Where closure report based on settlement already accepted, directing reinvestigation defeats finality – Reliance placed on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 [Paras 12, 13].

Doctrines – Estoppel & Approbate/Reprobate – Complainant, having received ₹5 crores in settlement, estopped from denying binding effect of MOU – Cannot blow hot and cold – Repeated complaints constitute abuse of process [Para 11].

Standard for Discharge – At charge stage, Court must examine if prima facie case exists – Here, entire case rested on allegations already settled – No new evidence unearthed in further investigation – Cognizance by Magistrate held mechanical without considering earlier closure and settlement – Discharge warranted [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Order of XI Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22.11.2024 dismissing discharge petition set aside – Petitioners discharged in C.C. No. 1163 of 2023 – Criminal revision allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 14].