Service Law - Misconduct - Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1971 - Rules 16 and 19 - Judicial Officer dismissed for serious misconduct including possession of benami mobile phones used to contact practicing advocates and failure to report purchase of motor vehicles and personal loans - Inquiry Officer and Full Court upheld charges based on evidence and petitioner's own admissions regarding non-disclosure - High Court observed that judicial officers must maintain absolute distance from practicing advocates to prevent appearance of impropriety - Held - Disciplinary authority's conclusion that charges were proven and warranted dismissal is justified - Petition dismissed - [Paras 19-37, 40-41].

Service Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference - High Court reiterated that in departmental inquiries it will not sit as an appellate court to reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact recorded by Inquiry Officer unless findings are perverse or punishment is disproportionate to the point of shocking the conscience - Held - Petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural illegality or lack of evidence - [Paras 14-15, 18, 42-44].

Service Law - Conduct Rules - Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1971 - Rule 19 - Failure to disclose movable property - Petitioner argued that claiming petrol allowance for vehicles constituted constructive notice to High Court - Held - Statutory requirement to report acquisition of movable property exceeding prescribed limit is mandatory and cannot be substituted by mere inference from allowance claims - Consistent disregard for reporting requirements establishes misconduct - [Paras 30-33].

Service Law - Disciplinary Action - Standard of proof - Quasi-criminal proceedings - Held - Charges of non-reporting of financial transactions were admitted by petitioner rendering arguments regarding standard of proof irrelevant - Misconduct of such nature reflects lack of integrity essential for a Judicial Officer - [Paras 40-43].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Dismissal order of the disciplinary authority stands confirmed.

Criminal Law - Habeas Corpus - Constitution of India - Article 22 - Illegal re-arrest - Petitioner was initially arrested and subsequently released by the Magistrate due to failure of the police to provide grounds of arrest in accordance with Mihir Rajesh Shah - Petitioner was re-arrested without following the mandatory procedure of seeking prior permission from the Magistrate and obtaining endorsement from a superior police officer as reiterated in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol - Court held that re-arrest without such judicial imprimatur and adherence to established protocol renders the detention unconstitutional - Held - Re-arrest is illegal and petitioner directed to be released forthwith - [Paras 3-17].

Criminal Law - Arrest Procedure - Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - Mandatory requirements - Safeguards regarding communication of grounds of arrest - Any breach of Article 22(1) renders the arrest unconstitutional - Subsequent registration of additional offences does not validate an arrest made in violation of fundamental rights - Investigating agencies must strictly follow the procedural safeguards regarding re-arrest after an accused is released from unconstitutional detention - Held - Mandatory protocols defined in Mihir Rajesh Shah and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol must be followed - [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Petition allowed – The re-arrest of the petitioner is declared illegal – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith from custody on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the Magistrate's order dated 23.07.2026.

Civil Law - Transfer of Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Convenience of the wife - Applicant wife sought transfer of Family Suit No 4 of 2026 from Morbi to Bhachau contending that she resides at Rapar Kutch which is 100 kilometres away and must care for a minor child - Husband opposed stating financial inability and suggested video conferencing - Court observed the wife is burdened with child care and the husband has a history of non-compliance with maintenance orders necessitating imprisonment - Held - Inconvenience to the wife outweighs the husband's constraints - Transfer allowed - [Paras 7-9].

Civil Law - Procedural Fairness - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Consolidation of proceedings - Applicant requested that the transferred suit and existing maintenance proceedings be heard by the same Court - Held - The transferee court may grant common dates for proceedings and permit the respondent to appear via video conferencing unless physical presence is mandatorily required - [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Application allowed - Family Suit No 4 of 2026 transferred from Family Court Morbi to the competent Court at Bhachau - Rule made absolute.

Civil Law - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13 - Cruelty - Husband filed for divorce alleging mental cruelty and wife's illicit relationship - Wife denied allegations and claimed harassment by in-laws - Family Court decreed divorce finding cruelty proved based on wife's conduct - High Court affirmed the decree noting that wife's failure to examine mother who filed affidavit and her cross-examination admissions regarding an apology for an extra-marital incident supported husband's version - Held - Lower court justified in granting divorce - [Paras 24-33].

Civil Law - Permanent Alimony - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 25 - Requirement of pleadings and evidence - Appellant-wife sought alimony for the first time in appellate proceedings - No claim or evidence regarding income and standard of living led before Family Court - Held - Appellate Court cannot adjudicate alimony claim without evidence at first instance - Liberty granted to file separate application before competent court - [Paras 34-42].

Civil Law - Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VIII Rule 4 - Adverse Inference - Wife's mother filed affidavit but failed to enter witness box for cross-examination - Wife made specific admissions in cross-examination regarding an incident of infidelity - Held - Adverse inference drawn against the wife regarding her conduct and the veracity of her defense - [Paras 25-26].

Civil Law - Mental Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Definition - Cruelty is not confined to physical violence but includes acts or omissions such as unfounded allegations of infidelity and persistent marital discord - Held - Conduct of parties and cumulative effect on marital relationship determines existence of mental cruelty - [Paras 28-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of divorce dated 11.11.2024 affirmed – Appellant granted liberty to file an independent application for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the appropriate forum.

Criminal Law - SC and ST Act - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Section 3(1)(g) - Offence of wrongful dispossession - Allegation that respondent broke water pipeline and shifted T-point on joint land - Trial Court discharged respondent noting absence of mens rea or nexus to caste - High Court upheld discharge finding dispute to be purely civil regarding joint land and water usage - Held - Provisions of the Act are not attracted in absence of evidence that victim was targeted specifically on account of being a member of SC/ST - [Paras 1-20].

Criminal Law - Scope of SC and ST Act - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Section 3(1)(g) - Civil dispute versus Criminal offence - Private civil disputes regarding possession of land or water rights cannot be converted into criminal proceedings under the Act - Unless victim is abused or intimidated specifically for belonging to SC/ST the Act is not attracted - Held - Criminal process cannot be abused to settle personal civil disputes - [Paras 13-18].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Order of discharge dated 19.01.2022 affirmed.

Civil Law - Fraud vitiating decree - Appellants claimed occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 via an ex-parte decree against the respondent's predecessor - Respondents alleged fraud and lack of service - Evidence revealed the advocate representing the owner also represented the adverse party - Admissions by a party to the original suit confirmed lack of service and conflict of interest - Held - Appellate court correctly found the decree was obtained by fraud and was rightly set aside - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-25].

Civil Law - Service of Summons - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order V - Proof of service - Mere assertion of service by bailiff is insufficient when summons lacks accompanying plaint - Conflict of interest by counsel appearing for both sides in ex-parte proceedings vitiates the trial process - Held - Procedural irregularities coupled with suppression of facts establish fraud upon the court - [Paras 16-19].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction of Appellate Court - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Findings of fact - First Appellate Court as the final court of fact evaluated process server testimony and admissions of original litigants - Held - Findings were neither perverse nor based on no evidence and do not warrant interference in Second Appeal - [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 12.04.1996 affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Temple Administration - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 - Section 48 - Appointment of temple servants - Petitioner challenged selection process for Adichuthali post where Interview Board excluded hereditary trustee and included only Board officials and non-hereditary members - High Court observed that statutory power to appoint vests exclusively in trustees under Section 48 - Held - Constitution of Interview Board without hereditary trustee is illegal and contrary to Section 48 mandate - Selection list vitiated - Fresh selection directed - [Paras 16-23].

Civil Law - Statutory Prerogative - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 - Section 48 - Appointment of temple servants - Board officials and Executive Officers cannot override stand of statutory appointing authority i.e. trustee - Held - Any appointment process conducted in contravention of trustee participation is non-est in law - [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed - Respondents 1 to 4 directed to initiate fresh selection for the post of Adichuthali after issuing fresh notification and including the hereditary trustee in the Interview Board within four months.

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Rejection of Plaint - Petitioners sought rejection of plaint alleging suit property was Benami under Section 4 of Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act 1988 and barred by limitation under Article 60 of Limitation Act 1963 - Trial Court dismissed application - High Court observed that Section 2(9)(iii) of the Act of 1988 provides an exception for property purchased in the name of a child from known sources for family benefit - Court held that questions regarding the nature of the transaction and the accrual of the cause of action are mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial - Order of trial court upheld - [Paras 1-19].

Civil Law - Benami Transaction - Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act 1988 - Section 4 - Exception under Section 2(9) - Property purchased by father in name of minor child for family benefit and later subject to family arrangement - Held - Such transactions fall within the statutory exception and do not per se attract the bar under Section 4 of the Act of 1988 - [Paras 8-10].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 58 - Suit for declaration - Limitation as a mixed question of fact and law - Determination of the date of knowledge or occurrence of cause of action cannot be summarily decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without evidence - Held - Plea of limitation involving disputed facts must be adjudicated through trial - [Paras 14-18].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed - The trial court's order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is affirmed, with liberty to parties to agitate the issues of limitation and benami status during trial.

Criminal Law - Excise - Punjab Excise Act 1914 - Section 61(1)(a) - Prosecution alleged recovery of illicit liquor from a vehicle parked at night - Trial Court convicted accused - Appellate Court reversed conviction noting contradictions in testimony regarding the place of incident and failure to produce sealed case property in Court - High Court affirmed acquittal holding that when two reasonable views are possible the view favouring the accused must prevail and the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the sample and seal - Held - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 19-31].

Evidence Law - Chain of Custody - Link Evidence - Failure to prove handling of sample seal - Prosecution witnesses failed to state that a specimen seal was deposited in the Malkhana or sent to the laboratory - Laboratory report indicating comparison of seal impressions becomes unreliable when the prosecution fails to prove the separate transit and receipt of the sample seal - Held - Link evidence is missing casting reasonable doubt on the integrity of the analysis - [Paras 26-29].

Evidence Law - Case Property - Non-production - Failure to produce the seized property or demonstrate proper sealing thereof - The recovery of empty pouches and the absence of seals on the boxes recovered from the scene create significant doubt on whether the same property was produced before the Court - Held - Prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving possession of contraband - [Paras 21-23].

Criminal Law - Appellate Power - Interference with acquittal - Principles governing appeals against acquittal - Appellate Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless it is perverse, impossible, or manifestly illegal - Double presumption of innocence exists in favour of an acquitted accused - Held - View taken by Appellate Court is reasonable and warrants no interference - [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Respondent directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety for a period of six months as per Section 437-A CrPC.