NDPS Bail – Recovery from Premises – Section 42 NDPS Act – Bail Denied – The petitioner was arrested based on disclosure of co-accused and 30 grams of heroin was recovered from her premises – The Court found prima facie compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, noting that prior information was recorded in the Daily Diary and appropriate permission was obtained for the search – Held: Search was legally conducted under supervision of an empowered officer [Paras 20–25, 30–35].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability Limited to Personal Search – No Violation Found – The petitioner argued non-compliance with Section 50 – The Court held that since the recovery was from premises and not person, Section 50 was not attracted – Relying on Baldev Singh and Prabhu decisions, Court clarified that protection under Section 50 applies only to personal search and not to residential premises [Paras 36–44].

Conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act – Prima Facie Material – Calls, Confession, Recovery – The petitioner was implicated based on CDRs showing 56 calls with co-accused and a disclosure statement admitting she received the heroin – Her prior involvement in similar offences and familial links to NDPS cases supported the prosecution’s theory of a drug network – Held: Prima facie role made out under Section 29 [Paras 20–21, 46–48].

Medical Grounds – No Immediate Risk – Jail Facilities Adequate – The petitioner cited serious eye ailments and filed jail medical records – Court acknowledged the health condition but found no imminent threat or unavailability of treatment in custody – Medical ground not sufficient to override gravity of offence [Paras 26, 49].

Previous Offences – Bail Refused – Prior Involvement in NDPS and IPC Cases – Petitioner had FIRs from 2019 and 2016, and family members were similarly involved – Court viewed this as indicative of continued criminal conduct – Held: Applicant posed a threat to society and was undeserving of bail [Paras 17, 47–48].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court found no merit in pleas regarding procedural violations or medical urgency – Recovery, disclosures, CDRs and antecedents cumulatively justified rejection of regular bail [Paras 50].

Civil Law - Money Lending – Exorbitant Interest – Applicability of TN Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act – Borrower filed O.P. seeking to restrict interest on ₹75 lakhs mortgage loan to 9% p.a. under Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act and Act 38 of 2003 – Respondent contended loan was via cheque, based on commercial agreement, and petitioner was not eligible for benefit under said Acts – Held: Loan disbursed by negotiable instrument exceeding ₹10,000 is excluded from definition of “loan” under TN Money Lenders Act – No evidence of kandu vatti, daily/hourly interest, or informal lending practices – Act 38 of 2003 does not apply – Petition rightly dismissed by Trial Court [Paras 8–21]

Jurisdiction – Suit under Order 34 CPC – Mortgage-based dispute – Trial Court noted respondent had already filed mortgage recovery suit under Order 34 CPC – Held: Original Petition under Act 38 of 2003 misconceived and not maintainable when parallel mortgage suit is pending – Remedy lies within civil suit framework, not under special statutes [Paras 13, 22]

Contractual Interest – Limitation of Statutory Cap – Petitioner argued that interest above 9% p.a. is usurious – High Court reiterated settled law that contractual terms between parties govern when loan is outside scope of Money Lenders Act – Petitioner must contest such terms in civil suit, not by invoking inapplicable statutory remedies [Paras 4–6, 22]

Decision – No perversity in Trial Court order – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Petitioner permitted to raise defences in pending mortgage suit – Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur directed to dispose suit by 31.12.2025 [Para 23]

Criminal Law – Challenge Conviction under Sections 392/34 and 397 IPC – Acquittal on Account of Unreliable Testimony – Judgment Set Aside – The appellants Naushad and Salman were convicted for robbery under Section 392/34 IPC, with Naushad also convicted under Section 397 IPC based on the complainant’s testimony alleging robbery at gunpoint – The Trial Court relied primarily on the complainant's deposition, despite no recovery of stolen articles or weapon, no independent witness, and inconsistencies between the complainant’s version and the police account – The High Court found material contradictions and improvements in the complainant's statements, including the delayed mention of a firearm, lack of description of the accused, and failure to explain urgency for delay in reporting – Held: Prosecution evidence unreliable and not of sterling quality – Conviction set aside – Both appellants acquitted [Paras 1–15].

Criminal Trial – Inconsistent Testimony – Conviction Set Aside – The complainant made material improvements during court deposition which contradicted his initial statements to the police – The use of a pistol was introduced much later – Court held such discrepancies and omissions as significant, rendering the testimony untrustworthy [Paras 6, 9–10].

Evidence – Identification and Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Refusal Not Fatal When Explained – Although appellants declined to participate in the TIP, they stated that police had shown their photographs to unidentified individuals – Court accepted this explanation and noted the complainant had not described the accused initially, making in-court identification unreliable [Para 12].

Recovery – Absence of Weapon and Stolen Property – Prosecution Failed to Establish Link – No recovery of robbed articles or the weapon allegedly used in commission of offence – Pistol found in another FIR was not exhibited in this case – This weakened the evidentiary value of prosecution’s case [Paras 5, 12].

Non-Joining of Public Witnesses – Further Weakening of Prosecution Case – Despite the incident occurring in a public area during the day, no effort was made to include independent witnesses – Court noted that where the sole witness lacks credibility, such omission becomes significant [Paras 7, 13–14].

Decision – Considering the material contradictions, delayed reporting, unreliable testimony, and lack of corroborative evidence, the High Court set aside the conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC (both appellants) and Section 397 IPC (Naushad) – Appeals allowed – Appellants acquitted [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Infrastructure – Interim Directions – Coordination between Judiciary and Executive – Positive Steps Ensured - The Court noted constructive efforts by the Bar Association and U.T. Administration under the chairmanship of the Additional Solicitor General to develop a holistic plan for infrastructural augmentation of the High Court – Various stages of compliance were noted and directives issued regarding kutcha parking, fire safety certification, and possible re-allocation of vacated Secretariat space to ease congestion in Sector-1 – The Court emphasized the necessity for judiciary to operate at full strength and urged cooperative federalism from U.T. Administration in realising infrastructural needs [Paras 3-8.3].

Judicial Infrastructure – Kutcha Parking – Green Pavers Directed - Bar Association approved the Building Committee’s plan – Court directed U.T. Administration to complete the green pavers work in kutcha parking area within 60 days [Paras 4-4.1].

Administrative Space – Allotment of Building in Sector-17 – Fire Safety Certificate Pending – Though possession of four floors was handed over to the High Court, absence of fire safety certificate from Municipal Corporation stalled effective use – Court directed issuance within one week failing which the Municipal Corporation may be impleaded and action initiated [Paras 5-5.2].

Alternative Site – Holistic Plan Under Discussion – No Directions Issued - Court refrained from passing directions regarding allotment of alternate site for new building until next meeting scheduled for 20.08.2025 – Proceedings of both meetings to be brought on record [Paras 3, 6].

Vacated Secretariat Building – Re-allocation for Court Use – Positive Suggestion - U.T. Chandigarh Administration was directed to explore allocation of two floors of partially vacated Secretariat building for High Court branches – Court reiterated the symbiotic relationship of the three democratic pillars and urged facilitative stance from Administration [Paras 8-8.3].

Decision – Interim Order – Monitoring Continued – Court Preserves Matter for Further Hearing - Directions issued in respect of kutcha parking, fire safety certification, and exploration of alternate space in Secretariat building – Court deferred decision on new building site until next meeting – Matter listed for further hearing on 22.08.2025 to monitor compliance and receive updated records of joint meetings [Para 9].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Claim by Heirs of Deceased Brother – Relinquishment of Share – Appeal Dismissed – Appellants (legal heirs of Narsing Gawli) filed partition suit claiming share in ancestral property – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that Narsing had relinquished his share and led separate life – High Court held no substantial question of law arose – Held: Concurrent findings on fact of relinquishment and separate residence unassailable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–11].

Substantial Question of Law – No Evidence to Rebut Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal Not Maintainable – The Court reiterated that second appeal lies only when a substantial question of law arises – Here, the plea that Narsing did not relinquish his share was disproved by admissions and evidence – Held: No perversity or legal error in concurrent findings – No interference warranted [Paras 9–10].

Family Settlement – Oral Relinquishment Valid in Facts – Evidence Supported Separate Possession – The Courts below relied on consistent evidence showing Narsing was allotted only a room and shop for maintenance, without further claim – Court upheld such oral family settlement, especially when supported by long-standing conduct – Held: Oral relinquishment in family arrangement is legally acceptable [Paras 7–9].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellants’ claim for partition rejected [Paras 10–11].

Family Law - Section 14 and 23 of the Hindu Succession Act – Right of Residence – Married/Destitute Daughters – Decree for Eviction Set Aside – The plaintiffs sought possession from female heirs (daughters of Rama) alleging they were gratuitous licensees – Defendants claimed possession since before 1956 on property allotted by their father Rama for maintenance – High Court held that even prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there was a moral obligation on the father to maintain his daughters – Held: Under Section 14 of the Act, such rights mature into absolute ownership – Section 23 (pre-2005) affirmed their right of residence – Plaintiff’s suit for possession unsustainable [Paras 5-21].

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act – Scope and Applicability – Property possessed by a Hindu female – Absolute Ownership – It was held that Section 14(1) has wide scope and converts limited rights (even arising from moral obligations) into absolute ownership – No restrictive covenant under Section 14(2) shown in this case – Hence, defendants' right to residence matured into ownership [Paras 13-15, 17].

Moral Obligation to Maintain – Converts to Legal Obligation – Where a father allows destitute or widowed daughters to reside on property, such a moral obligation matures into a legal right when acknowledged – This principle extends to heirs inheriting the property – The court reaffirmed that legal obligations flowing from moral duties remain valid under Hindu law [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court Set Aside – Defendants’ right to reside upheld – Plaintiff’s claim for eviction rejected as unsustainable under law [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Service Law  – Appointment from Waitlist – Rule 18 of DJS Rules – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner, waitlisted at Rank 5 under unreserved category in Delhi Judicial Services Exam 2022, sought appointment upon resignation of a selected candidate who had already joined – Held: Rule 18(vi) permits appointment from waitlist only in case of non-joining, not post-joining resignation – Petitioner not entitled to claim appointment based on resignation of a joined candidate [Paras 1-6, 14-16, 22-23].

Validity of Select List – Rule 18(vii) vs 18(vi) – Dichotomy in Rules – No Right Accrued - Though the Select List remains valid till publication of a new list (Rule 18(vii)), its use for appointment is confined to vacancies from non-joining (Rule 18(vi)) – Court observed an internal inconsistency but declined to extend interpretation in favour of petitioner – Appropriate remedy lies in rule amendment, not judicial interpretation [Paras 15, 25].

Resignation after Joining – Not a Vacancy to be Filled via Waitlist – Judicial Precedents Applied - Referring to Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, (2023) 10 SCC 54 and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637, Court reiterated that vacancies arising post-joining (due to resignation, etc.) are to be treated as fresh vacancies and cannot be filled from the existing waitlist without fresh recruitment [Paras 16, 19].

DoPT OM Dated 13.06.2000 – Inapplicable to Judicial Services – Separation of Judicial Administration - Court rejected analogy with Central Government recruitment governed by DoPT rules – Held: Delhi Judicial Services governed by separate state-specific rules – DoPT OMs and UPSC-based interpretations not binding on judicial recruitment [Paras 17-18].

Allegation of Misconduct in Joining – Not Justiciable in Present Petition – Issue Left Open - The Court declined to enter into the question of whether the resigned candidate (Ms. Riya Goyal) concealed facts relating to appointment in Punjab Judicial Service – Held: Not relevant for deciding entitlement of petitioner to appointment from waitlist [Para 24].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Right to Appointment - Petition seeking appointment against vacancy arising due to resignation after joining held not maintainable – Court recommended placing judgment before the Rules Committee for consideration of amending DJS Rules to resolve existing ambiguity [Paras 23, 25].

Theft Case – Conviction under Section 379 IPC – Sole Reliance on Recovery Evidence – Not Sustainable – Petitioner convicted for snatching ornaments from complainant’s wife – Neither complainant nor witness identified accused – No test identification conducted – Conviction rested entirely on recovery of ornaments under Section 27 Evidence Act – Court held recovery is not substantive evidence and cannot by itself establish guilt – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 6-9, 11].

Recovery under Section 27 – Corroboration Required – Supreme Court Precedent – Court relied on Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., AIR 2023 SC 3857, holding that disclosure statements and recovery under Section 27, though relevant, cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless corroborated by independent evidence – Here, absence of corroboration rendered conviction unsustainable [Paras 9, 11].

Presumption under Section 114(a) Evidence Act – Cannot Be Drawn in Isolation – Prosecution urged conviction at least under Section 411 IPC for possession of stolen property – Court held presumption under Section 114(a) must be based on corroborative material – Sole reliance on disclosure/recovery insufficient – Conviction under Section 411 also impermissible [Paras 10-11].

Appellate and Trial Courts – Error in Law – Correction by High Court – Both trial and appellate courts erred in sustaining conviction on recovery evidence alone – High Court intervened in revision, holding absence of substantive evidence linking accused to theft warranted acquittal [Paras 7, 11].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Accused Acquitted – High Court allowed revision petition – Petitioner acquitted of all charges under Sections 379/34 IPC – Held recovery evidence alone insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 11].

Company Law  – SFIO probe – Whistleblower sought copies of complaint & annexures – Special Court directed “Issue CC on usual terms” without reasons – High Court quashed – Held: Stranger not entitled to complaint/annexures; only investigation report permissible under Section 212(13) Companies Act – Orders unsustainable – Applications remitted [Paras 8–12, 18–20].

Third-party right to copies – Criminal Rules of Practice (Kerala) – Rule 226 allows strangers to apply but no entitlement as of right – Court must assess bona fides, purpose and privacy concerns – Orders must show reasons – Here, Special Court’s cryptic orders unsustainable – Ismail P.M. v. Muhammad Ameer-ul-Islam, 2022 (2) KHC 660 (Ker HC DB) and Karthik Dasari v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1412 applied [Paras 8–10, 16–17].

Companies Act – Section 212(13) – Scope – “Any person concerned” may obtain copy of SFIO’s investigation report – Petitioner already supplied report (Annexure A10) – No right to complaint or annexures under Companies Act – Generalia specialibus non derogant argument rejected for non-report documents [Paras 11–12, 18–19].

Privacy & misuse – Concern that petitioner intended to use documents for political mileage despite civil court injunction (OS No.104/2025, Sub Judge Ernakulam) – Court emphasized privacy of accused/respondents – Referred Saurav Das v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 154 holding charge sheet/documents not “public documents” under Evidence Act [Paras 6, 12, 20].

Judicial duty – Courts must give reasoned orders when granting copies – Mere “Issue CC” not sufficient – Application must be verified and purpose scrutinized – Orders here quashed for non-application of mind [Paras 8–9, 17].

Rules Committee – Court requested amendment of Rule 226 to require notice to affected parties before granting third-party copies, in light of privacy implications [Para 20].

Disposition – Crl.M.C. Nos. 6537 & 6409/2025 (by CMRL) allowed; orders directing copies quashed – Crl.M.C. No. 5765/2025 (by Shone George) dismissed – Special Court to reconsider applications afresh with reasons and safeguards [Paras 18–20].