Bar Association Election – Interim Stay by Bar Council of India – Writ Petition for Recount of Votes – Petition Disposed – The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana had ordered a recount of votes in the election for President, District Bar Association, Chandigarh—Bar Council of India stayed the recount pending revision—Petitioner approached High Court seeking relief—High Court declined to enter merits and directed Bar Council of India to dispose of revision petition within two weeks, ensuring prompt transmission of records by all concerned—Petitioner assured presence during hearing before BCI [Paras 1–3].

Criminal Writ Law - Mental Illness and Criminal Trial – Resumption of Trial under Section 331 & 332 Cr.P.C – Limited Enquiry Required – Violation of Natural Justice – Partially Allowed - After being declared unfit to stand trial under Section 329 Cr.P.C due to paranoid schizophrenia, the accused was later found fit for trial following treatment – Sessions Court proceeded with framing charges based on a medical report but without affording the accused or his representative an opportunity to cross-examine the psychiatrist or present contrary evidence – Held: Trial Court must conduct a limited enquiry, including permitting cross-examination of the psychiatrist and consideration of any additional evidence before deciding on resumption of trial – Matter remanded to Sessions Court for fresh decision [Paras 6–14, 19].

Criminal Procedure – Section 329 Cr.P.C – Requirement of Judicial Satisfaction – Not Met – Procedural Lapse Found – The Sessions Court acted solely on the medical report without conducting a proper enquiry into the accused’s capacity to make his defence – No finding recorded on capability – Failure to allow cross-examination of medical expert vitiated the process – Sessions Court directed to reconsider the matter in compliance with Sections 329, 331, and 332 Cr.P.C [Paras 7–14].

Mental Healthcare Act – Section 105 – Reference to Mental Health Review Board Not Mandatory – Cr.P.C Framework Prevails - The petitioner contended that failure to refer the issue to the Mental Health Review Board under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 vitiated proceedings – Held: Sections 328 and 329 Cr.P.C provide a more detailed and specialised framework for assessing the accused’s mental fitness to stand trial – Therefore, reference under Section 105 is not mandatory if Cr.P.C procedures are fully complied with [Paras 15–18].

Decision – Petition Partially Allowed – Sessions Court Directed to Permit Cross-examination of Psychiatrist and Allow Evidence by Petitioner – Sessions Court to Decide Afresh Whether Trial May Proceed – Procedural Safeguards Under Cr.P.C Must Be Observed [Para 19].

Criminal Law - Seizure of Vehicles – Supardari - Jurisdiction of District Collector – Validity Upheld – Petitioners challenged the orders of District Collector Banswara releasing vehicles seized under the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, contending lack of jurisdiction and necessity of approaching Magistrate – Held: District Collector is competent authority under Section 6-A of the 1995 Act and acts as quasi-judicial authority – His jurisdiction to order interim custody or release of vehicles is valid and does not require prior confiscation proceedings [Paras 1, 5, 12, 13].

Powers of District Collector – Quasi-Judicial Nature – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Court reaffirmed that District Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to decide matters under Section 6-A, including interim release or confiscation of vehicles used in offences under the Act – Such power is distinct from criminal jurisdiction and not amenable to interference under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 11–12].

Supurdginama – Permissibility Without Confiscation – Held Permissible – Even in absence of confiscation proceedings, interim release of vehicles on supurdginama with proper safeguards (like undertakings and non-transfer of vehicles) is valid – Prevents deterioration of vehicles and loss to both owners and State [Paras 11–14].

Confiscation Proceedings – Procedure Under Section 6-A – Elaborate Safeguards – The District Collector must provide opportunity of hearing to vehicle owners, ensure good faith, and may impose fine in lieu of confiscation – Orders of release passed with such consideration were found legal and reasoned [Paras 10–12].

Precedents – Reliance on Coordinate Bench – Cited Cases – The Court relied upon earlier ruling in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 (3) Cr.L.R. (RAJ) 1196, and also Chhatarpal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.490/2021, as well as relevant Supreme Court decisions [Paras 6, 8, 11].

Remedies – Recommendation for Appellate Provision – While no statutory appeal exists under Section 6-A, Court recommended the State Legislature to consider introducing an appellate remedy, similar to provisions under Rajasthan Excise Act and Section 7 of the Bovine Act [Para 11].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Court upheld validity of the District Collector's orders granting interim release of vehicles and dismissed the writ petitions – Directed petitioners to submit undertakings to produce vehicles during trial and not create third-party rights – Clarified that Magistrate remains empowered under 1960 Act and Rules of 2016 [Paras 14–16].

Maintenance Claim – Second Marriage with Deceased Husband’s Brother – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Dismissal Set Aside – Revision Allowed – Trial court dismissed maintenance claim of widow and her two minor children on ground that her marriage with deceased husband’s brother (respondent) was not proved – Departmental inquiry in police service found respondent guilty of bigamy and recorded statements of respondent and his first wife admitting second marriage with revisionist – Village Pradhan’s certificate, Aadhaar and other records showed respondent as husband – Held: In light of SC precedents (Chanmuniya, Kamala, N. Usha Rani, Badshah), term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to be given broad interpretation to prevent destitution – Strict proof of marriage not a precondition when parties cohabited as husband and wife – Finding of trial court based on hyper-technical approach unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh decision treating revisionist as wife – Interim maintenance of ₹8,000/month awarded to revisionist [Paras 29-34].

Civil Law - Secondary Evidence – Will – Sections 65 & 66 Evidence Act – Order Allowing Secondary Evidence Set Aside – Trial court permitted plaintiff to lead secondary evidence of registered Will without prior notice under Section 66 to Halqa Patwari alleged to have custody of document—Halqa Patwari earlier impleaded as defendant but later deleted from array of parties—Petitioner objected citing mandatory notice requirement—Respondent conceded to setting aside with liberty to move fresh application—High Court allowed revision, set aside impugned order, granted liberty to file fresh application for proving Will in accordance with law [Paras 2–4].

Civil Law - Adverse Possession – Title Denial via Unregistered Sale Deed – No Adverse Possession Established – The defendant claimed ownership by an unregistered sale deed dated 15/11/1973 and sought to establish adverse possession from that date – Held: An unregistered sale deed for consideration above Rs.100 does not confer ownership, and possession under such transaction is permissive, not hostile – Defendant failed to plead or prove open and hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner – Adverse possession cannot be claimed while simultaneously denying true owner’s title – Judgment and decree of courts below set aside [Paras 3, 9, 15-17].

Suit for Possession – No Declaration of Title Required – Title Not Disputed – Plaintiff’s Title Admitted by Defendant – Defendant’s defence based on purchase from plaintiff through unregistered sale deed constitutes admission of plaintiff’s ownership – Held: In such cases, even without a declaration of title, a suit for possession is maintainable [Para 18].

Eviction and Injunction – Plaintiff Entitled to Relief – Defendant Directed to Vacate – Appeal Allowed – Defendant permanently restrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff – Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments reversed – Suit decreed [Paras 20-22].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Executability of Eviction Decree – Multinational Company Sub-lessee – Jurisdiction Upheld – The petitioner, a multinational company, challenged the execution of eviction decrees on the ground that premises were exempt under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Held: The exemption is qua the premises let or sub-let lawfully – In the absence of lawful subletting, and where tenancy was terminated due to non-user and subletting by original tenant, the Small Causes Court retained jurisdiction – Executing Court rightly refused to declare decree null and void [Paras 6.4, 6.8, 31-35, 38-39].

Execution – Scope of Challenge – Nullity of Decree – Limited Grounds – The Court reiterated that executing courts can declare a decree null and void only when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction – Held: In this case, decree was passed by a court having jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters – Petitioner is barred from changing stance post-decree execution proceedings – No inherent lack of jurisdiction found [Paras 16-18, 39-40].

Tenant and Sub-tenant – Contradictory Stand – Estoppel – Petitioner Denied Protection Under Rent Act, Then Claimed Exemption – Not Permissible – Before the Trial Court, the petitioner had denied being in exclusive possession and claimed protection under the Rent Act – Later, in execution proceedings, sought to argue that the Act does not apply – Held: Petitioner estopped from raising contrary plea at belated stage – Such volte-face undermines judicial process [Paras 11, 33-34].

Interpretation – Exemption Under Section 3(1)(b) – Applies to Lawfully Let or Sub-let Premises – Cannot Be Used to Circumvent Rent Act – Held: Section 3(1)(b) applies only to premises let or sub-let lawfully – Allowing unlawful subletting to invoke exemption would render protections of the Rent Act meaningless – Such interpretation rejected [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Executing Court Order Sustained – Writ Petitions dismissed – No interference warranted with orders upholding decree and possession warrants – Rule discharged with no order as to costs [Paras 41-42].

Civil Law - Representative Suit – Conversion After 21 Years – Writ Petition Allowed – Association of retired employees filed suit in 2004 seeking multiple pensionary benefits under Vysya Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 for members retired under VRS 2002—In 2024, plaintiffs applied under Order I Rule 8 CPC to convert into representative suit—Trial court allowed, terming lack of initial compliance a curable procedural defect—High Court quashed order, holding that (i) no public notice issued to all interested as mandated, (ii) application filed after conclusion of arguments and reservation of judgment constituted inordinate, prejudicial delay, and (iii) members’ grievances were diverse, defeating requirement of common interest—Directed trial court to conclude long-pending suit within 4 weeks [Paras 10-14].

Order I Rule 8 CPC – Mandatory Preconditions – Court emphasised statutory requirement of prior permission and notice to all interested persons—Violation renders representative character invalid; cannot be cured post-reservation of judgment when diverse claims exist [Paras 10-12].

Delay and Prejudice – Filing application after two decades and at stage of judgment reservation shows indolence; allowing would cause grave prejudice and indefinite prolongation [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Writ petition allowed; trial court’s order dated 15.02.2025 in I.A. No. 1/2024 quashed; application under Order I Rule 8 CPC dismissed; trial court directed to deliver judgment in O.S. No. 8105/2004 within 4 weeks [Para 14].

NDPS Bail – Sections 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS - Recovery of Intermediate Quantity of Heroine – Section 37 Not Attracted – Bail Granted – Petitioner was arrested for alleged possession of 100 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity – Co-accused implicated her through disclosure statement – Held: Section 37 NDPS not applicable to intermediate quantity – Bail granted considering long custody, parity with co-accused, and absence of need for further investigation [Paras 2, 14, 24-26].

Disclosure Statement – Limited Evidentiary Value – Arrest Based on Co-accused’s Statement – The applicant’s arrest was based on a disclosure statement of co-accused without independent corroboration – Held: Sole reliance on disclosure without further investigation cannot justify prolonged incarceration – Custodial interrogation no longer required [Paras 13-14, 24-25].

Procedural Safeguards – Violation of Sections 42, 50 and 57 NDPS Act Alleged – Petitioner alleged multiple procedural lapses, including improper communication of grounds of arrest and non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS – Held: These contentions merit consideration at trial – Not decisive for rejecting bail at this stage [Paras 4-10].

Parity and Discrimination – Co-accused Already Released – Petitioner Entitled to Bail – Co-accused with similar or lesser recovery granted bail – Held: Applicant cannot be treated differently in absence of compelling distinguishing factors – Parity principle applicable [Para 24].

Prolonged Custody – No Need for Further Investigation – Chargesheet Filed – Bail Justified – Petitioner in custody since 26.04.2024 – No fresh recovery required and investigation substantially completed – Held: Further incarceration unnecessary and would amount to pre-trial punishment [Paras 2, 11, 24-26].

Final Order – Bail Granted – Subject to Conditions – Court granted bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 35,000/- with surety and imposed conditions including attendance in Court, no tampering with evidence, and residence verification [Para 26].