Civil Law - Execution of Foreign Decree – Section 44A CPC – Reciprocating Territory – Objections under Section 13(c) & (f) CPC – FEMA Violations – English Commercial Court decree for Early Redemption Amount, interest and damages sought to be executed – Judgment debtor contended that decree violated FEMA and RBI Master Direction-ECB – Held: UK is reciprocating territory and decree passed by Superior Court – FEMA objections not raised before English Court despite contest – Foreign Court cannot be expected to apply Indian statute suo motu – Decree not rendered inconclusive or unenforceable on that ground [Paras 31, 35–36, 67].

FEMA – Master Direction-ECB – All-in-Cost Ceiling – Penal Interest – Early Redemption Amount – Subscription Agreement provided coupon interest @ 5.95% with additional default interest @ 2% – English Court awarded interest @ 7.95% – Held: Additional 2% default interest permissible under Para 2.1(vii) of Master Direction-ECB – Interest awarded falls within permissible ceiling – No violation of FEMA in respect of ERA and interest thereon [Paras 41–43, 61–64].

Damages for Breach of Contract – Applicability of FEMA Caps – English Court awarded damages for delay in conversion of FCCBs and interest thereon – RBI contended damages linked to ECB must comply with 2% ceiling – Held: Damages awarded by competent foreign court for breach of contract cannot be subjected to caps under FEMA or Master Direction-ECB – Para 2.1(vi) & (vii) refer to interest-related costs such as prepayment charges and penal interest – No reference to damages – FEMA and RBI directions cannot obstruct or dilute enforcement of foreign decree – Reliance placed on Alcon Electronics and Ultrabulk – Principles of NTT Docomo applicable – Decree enforceable notwithstanding RBI’s stand [Paras 50–57, 59].

Foreign Judgments – Comity of Courts – Enforcement of Substantive Rights – Supreme Court in Alcon Electronics emphasised reciprocal advantage in enforcing foreign rights – Even if certain heads not permissible under Indian procedural law, decree not rendered inexecutable – Substantive rights determined under foreign law must be respected [Paras 32–33, 52].

Remittance of Amount – FEMA Compliance – RBI clarified that payment of ERA akin to repayment of FCCBs and damages/interest are current account transactions – No bar to remittance to Euro denominated account provided by decree holder – Objection regarding non-registered account rejected [Paras 46, 65–66, 70–71].

Costs – Frivolous Objections – Court held objections filed to obstruct and delay execution – Objections rejected with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to decree holder [Para 68].

Decision: Execution Petition allowed – Foreign Decree held executable under Section 44A CPC – Objections under Section 13(c) & (f) CPC rejected – Judgment Debtor directed to remit decretal amount – Registry directed to release deposited amounts with accrued interest to decree holder’s Euro account – Remaining amount to be directly remitted – Costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on Judgment Debtor – Pending applications disposed of.

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Interim Order Directing Deposit of Compensation – Land Acquisition for National Highways – Interim direction issued to deposit compensation for acquired OSR lands in interest-bearing fixed deposit in name of Registrar General – Despite communication of order and reminders, appellant disbursed nearly Rs.20 Crores to private individuals – Held: Direction was clear and unambiguous – Disbursement in face of subsisting order amounts to wilful disobedience – Finding of contempt justified [Paras 16–20, 22–23].

Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction – Distinction from Merits of Writ Dispute – Appellant contended lands were private lands as per revenue records and not OSR lands – Court held that in contempt proceedings, correctness of original order or merits of acquisition cannot be examined – Only question is compliance with order in force – Authorities cannot interpret order on their own – Proper course was to seek clarification or modification [Paras 19, 21–22].

Knowledge of Court Order – Communication and Subsequent Conduct – Interim order dated 10.02.2020 communicated officially and through District Collector – Further representations and legal notice issued – Despite full knowledge, compensation disbursed – Recovery of amount subsequent to violation does not obliterate contempt once committed [Paras 18, 24].

Sentence – Civil Imprisonment – Proportionality – Appellant sentenced to one month civil imprisonment and had already undergone 19 days – Held: Considering magnitude of amount involved and deliberate breach, sentence not excessive – Appellant directed to undergo remaining period of imprisonment [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Contempt Appeal dismissed – Order dated 04.08.2023 in Cont.P.No.642 of 2020 affirmed – Appellant to undergo remaining period of civil imprisonment as imposed by learned Single Judge.

Commercial Suit – Disclosure of Documents – Order XI Rule 1 CPC (as amended by Commercial Courts Act) – Additional Documents at Argument Stage – Suit marked undefended as defendant forfeited right to file written statement – Plaintiff sought leave to disclose documents which were in its power and possession but not filed with plaint – Held: No absolute bar under Sub-Rule 5 to Rule 1 of Order XI – Court may grant leave even after Sub-Rule 4 stage upon showing “reasonable cause” – Legislature consciously engrafted Sub-Rule 5 permitting exercise of judicial discretion – Leave granted subject to costs [Paras 15–19, 25–28].

Reasonable Cause – Meaning and Scope – Lower Threshold than “Good Cause” or “Sufficient Cause” – Plaintiff explained that documents were either located at plant office, stored in archived email database, or in possession of sister concern and were traced only after Court’s queries during arguments – Held: Causes shown were just, cogent and reasonable – At stage of granting leave, Court not required to test genuineness or veracity of documents – Such scrutiny to be undertaken at trial [Paras 21, 23–24, 26–27].

Undefended Suit – Right of Audience – Defendant having forfeited right to file written statement cannot claim right of audience in application – However, defendant entitled to cross-examine second witness limited to additional documents permitted to be disclosed [Paras 4, 29].

Scope of Judicial Discretion – Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – No Outer Time Limit Fixed – Even at argument stage, additional documents may be permitted if reasonable cause shown – Right of plaintiff to present case is a vested right in adversarial litigation – Court’s jurisdiction at this stage confined to considering whether documents should be taken on record and not their evidentiary value [Paras 25–27].

Directions – Plaintiff permitted to disclose documents annexed as “C-1” to “F” – Additional Judges’ Brief of Documents to be filed – Leave granted to file affidavit of evidence of second witness restricted to said documents – Disclosure subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- as costs to Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks – Defendant entitled to limited cross-examination [Paras 28–31].

Decision: Application allowed – Leave granted to disclose additional documents and file affidavit of second witness restricted to such documents – Costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed – Defendant entitled to limited cross-examination.

Banking Law – Fraud Classification – Interim Injunction – Forensic Audit Report – Single Judge restrained banks from proceeding on basis of Forensic Audit Report dated 15.10.2020 holding it invalid under RBI Master Directions 2024 – Held: Master Directions 2024 operate prospectively – Actions taken under Master Directions 2016 remain valid – External auditor under Clause 8.8.2 of 2016 Directions need not necessarily be a Chartered Accountant under Companies Act – Interim injunction effectively granted final relief and was perverse – Order set aside [Paras 32-36, 44-45, 51-52].

RBI Master Directions – Supersession – Effect of 2024 Directions – Whether earlier actions invalidated – Single Judge held 2024 Directions superseded 2016 Directions and required audit by qualified Chartered Accountant under relevant statute – Division Bench held 2024 Directions built upon and consolidated earlier regime but did not retrospectively invalidate actions under 2016 Directions – No saving clause required to preserve concluded actions – Executive decisions under 2016 continue to subsist [Paras 32-33, 36].

Forensic Audit – Qualification of Auditor – Footnote 14 to Clause 4.1.1 of 2024 Directions – Interpretation – Single Judge held report invalid as signatory not a Chartered Accountant and BDO not ICAI-registered – Held: Clause 8.8.2 of 2016 Directions permitted banks to engage external auditors including forensic experts or internal teams – Companies Act does not define “external auditor” or “forensic expert” in this context – Requirement under 2024 Directions cannot be read retrospectively – Finding of ineligibility perverse [Paras 35-36, 39-40].

Civil Procedure – Interim Injunction – Grant of Relief Beyond Pleadings – Single Judge relied on issues not pleaded or argued including alleged lack of independence of BDO and timeline violations – Held: Court cannot rewrite pleadings or grant interim relief on grounds dehors pleadings – Interim order amounted to granting final relief of declaration and mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage – Procedural impropriety vitiated order [Paras 41-44, 51].

Injunction Principles – Prima Facie Case – Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Injury – Respondent challenged forensic report years after receipt and after multiple proceedings – Fraud proceedings at show-cause stage with opportunity of hearing – Held: No prima facie case established – No irreparable injury shown – Greater public interest in allowing banks to proceed in fraud classification – Interim stay of all banks’ actions unjustified [Paras 45-49].

Equitable Relief – Conduct of Plaintiff – Multiple proceedings – Delay and waiver – Respondent received forensic report in 2021 but raised qualification issue only after RTI in 2025 – Engaged in several legal proceedings including writ petitions – Held: Conduct relevant in equity – Belated jurisdictional challenge insufficient to justify interim injunction [Paras 46, 50].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Interim Orders – Though appellate court normally slow to interfere, interference justified where order suffers from perversity, consideration of irrelevant material, and breach of natural justice – Impugned order set aside as illegal and procedurally improper [Para 51].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment dated 24.12.2025 granting interim injunction set aside – Interim Applications dismissed – Banks permitted to proceed in accordance with law – Suits to continue uninfluenced by Single Judge’s observations.

Bail – Assault on Public Servant – Allegation of dragging police constable on bonnet of moving car during lawful checking – Prima facie concerted act by occupants to obstruct official duty – Seriousness of offence and stage of investigation weigh against grant of bail – Role of applicant not found minimal at this stage – Bail rejected [Paras 7, 8, 12, 27].

Bail Jurisprudence – Reliance on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI – Principles against mechanical arrest and prolonged incarceration – Distinguished – Case involves deliberate assault on police personnel during sensitive security arrangement – Gravity and surrounding circumstances justify continued custody – No absolute rule of bail merely because investigation substantially complete [Paras 9–11].

Common Intention – Participation of Co-accused – Applicant claimed to be mere passenger – Prosecution version indicates collective act in furtherance of common intention – Specific allegations of pulling, throwing and dragging complainant – Role to be examined at trial – Discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 7, 8].

Contempt of Court – Advocate Convicted for Criminal Contempt – Rule 16 of M.P. High Court (Conditions of Practice) Rules, 2012 – Advocate found guilty of criminal contempt and conviction affirmed by Supreme Court – No material showing purgation of contempt – Appearance before Court without compliance violative of Rule 16 – Show-cause notice directed – State Bar Council directed to inform steps taken [Paras 16, 21–24].

Regulation of Advocates’ Appearance – Inherent Powers of Constitutional Courts – Courts empowered to regulate appearance of advocates to preserve dignity and orderly functioning – Reliance on Supreme Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, Mahipal Singh Rana and R. Muthukrishnan – Conduct of counsel found aggressive and bordering on defiance – Action warranted to uphold institutional discipline [Paras 17–20].

Decision: First bail application under Section 483 BNSS dismissed – Office directed to issue show-cause notice to Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria regarding appearance despite subsisting conviction for criminal contempt – Notice to State Bar Council to report compliance/action – Matter to be listed under “Direction” in week commencing 06/04/2026.

Constitutional Law – Interfaith Live-in Relationship – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Multiple writ petitions by major Hindu and Muslim couples residing together without marriage seeking police protection – State objected on ground of non-compliance with Sections 8 and 9 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Held: Right to choose a partner and to cohabit flows from Article 21 – Courts must protect life and liberty of consenting adults irrespective of religion – Police directed to ensure protection if threat perception exists [Paras 31-34, 42].

U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Scope and Applicability – Whether mere interfaith live-in relationship attracts Sections 3 and 5 – Definition of “Conversion” under Section 2(c) requires renouncing one’s religion and adopting another – In absence of any allegation or material of conversion or attempt by misrepresentation, force, coercion or marriage, provisions of Act not attracted – Compliance with Sections 8 and 9 required only when conversion is intended – Live-in relationship per se does not mandate prior declaration under the Act – Petitioners not shown to have committed any offence [Paras 28-30].

Personal Law – Muslim Law – Observations in Kiran Rawat regarding impermissibility of premarital relationship in Islam – Held: No penal consequences under IPC or statutory law for consensual cohabitation between adults – Religious tenets cannot override constitutional guarantees – Protection cannot be denied on basis of personal law objections [Paras 26-27].

Fundamental Rights – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Articles 14 and 15 – If live-in relationship between adults of same religion is entitled to protection, denial to interfaith couple would amount to discrimination – Law equal for all irrespective of religion – State cannot discriminate in extending protection of life and liberty [Paras 42-43].

Right to Privacy and Choice – Autonomy of Adult Individuals – Reliance placed on Lata Singh, Shafin Jahan, Shakti Vahini, K.S. Puttaswamy, Supriyo, Soni Gerry and Mayra @ Vaishnavi – Choice of partner lies within exclusive domain of individual – Social approval not condition precedent for exercise of constitutional rights – State under positive obligation to protect couples from honour-based threats [Paras 16-21, 34-36, 39-40].

Live-in Relationship – Legal Recognition – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act acknowledges relationship in nature of marriage – Mere absence of marriage does not deprive major individuals of protection under Article 21 – Court cannot sit in moral judgment over consensual adult cohabitation [Paras 36, 46-49 of Akanksha case referred].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – Petitioners at liberty to live together peacefully – In case of disturbance or credible threat, petitioners may approach Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP concerned – Police authorities directed to verify majority and voluntary cohabitation and provide immediate protection – No coercive action to be taken against petitioners unless any cognizable offence is registered in accordance with law.

FIR Registration – BNSS, 2023 – Preliminary Enquiry under Section 173(3) – Petitioner sought mandamus to register FIR alleging forgery, defamation, offences under SC/ST Act and IT Act – Police conducted preliminary enquiry with prior approval and closed complaint as “No Cognizable Offence” – Held: Under Section 173(3) BNSS, preliminary enquiry permissible in offences punishable between 3 to 7 years to ascertain prima facie case – If no prima facie case found, FIR need not be registered – Action of police in conformity with BNSS – No interference warranted [Paras 6(ii)-6(iv), 8].

Alternative Remedy – Sections 173(4) and 175 BNSS – Petitioner directly invoked Article 226 without approaching Superintendent of Police or Magistrate – Held: Statutory remedy before SP and thereafter Magistrate is mandatory precondition – Writ petition not maintainable without exhausting remedy – Liberty granted to approach Magistrate [Paras 6(v), 8, 11].

Defamation – Non-Cognizable Offence – Allegations primarily disclose reputational harm due to media broadcast – Criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS is non-cognizable and bailable – Held: Police cannot register FIR for defamation alone – Remedy lies before Magistrate by private complaint [Para 3 – Reply; Paras 7, 9].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Essential Ingredients – Complaint did not disclose insult or intimidation on ground of Scheduled Tribe status – Mere allegation of fabrication of documents insufficient – No prima facie case under SC/ST Act made out – Held: Provisions not attracted [Para 7, 9].

Information Technology Act – Ingredients of Offence – Allegations did not disclose impersonation, identity theft, cheating by personation, or publication of obscene/sexually explicit material – No material to attract Sections 66C, 66D, 67, 67A IT Act – Held: No cognizable offence under IT Act prima facie made out [Para 7].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus to Register FIR – In light of statutory scheme under BNSS and Supreme Court decisions, writ court should not direct registration of FIR when statutory remedies exist and preliminary enquiry conducted in accordance with law – Held: No mandamus can be issued – Writ dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Applicability of BNSS – Complaint lodged after enforcement of BNSS on 01.07.2024 – Held: Procedure under BNSS governs – Old CrPC provisions not applicable – Section 173(3) BNSS marks departure from Section 154 CrPC and permits limited preliminary enquiry even where cognizable offence disclosed [Paras 6(i)-6(iv), 9].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Communication dated 08.11.2025 upholding “No Cognizable Offence” sustained – Petitioner at liberty to approach competent Magistrate under BNSS, 2023 – Pending applications closed.

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Removal from Service – Petitioner, Office Subordinate, repeatedly attended duty in drunken state at different Courts – Medical certificates and breath analyzer reports confirmed consumption of alcohol – Evidence of Presiding Officers, Sub-Inspector of Police and Civil Assistant Surgeons corroborated misconduct – Held: Findings of Enquiry Officer based on cogent evidence – No procedural illegality warranting interference under Article 226 [Paras 11–15].

Misconduct – Government Servant – Attending Duty Under Influence of Alcohol – Abusing advocates and behaving recklessly with family members of Presiding Officers while on guard duty – Conduct amounts to unbecoming of Government servant under Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Repeated instances demonstrate indiscipline and grave misconduct [Paras 12, 14–15].

Judicial Review – Scope – High Court in writ jurisdiction not to re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings unless findings perverse or contrary to record – Medical evidence and witness testimony clearly established charge – Plea that smell of alcohol due to liver medication rejected in view of medical certificates confirming intoxication levels [Paras 13–15].

Major Penalty – Proportionality – Considering series of incidents and repeated misconduct across different postings, punishment of removal from service under Rule 9(ix) of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 held justified – No ground for interference [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order dated 04.06.2018 imposing removal from service upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Income Tax – Faceless Assessment – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Assessment Order Set Aside – Petitioner challenged assessment order dated 04.12.2025 passed under Section 144 r/w Section 144B of the Income Tax Act pursuant to remand by appellate authority – Portal disabled e-submission facility on the last date for reply to show cause notice and option for video conference hearing was also disabled – Grievance raised by petitioner was not redressed – No personal hearing granted despite specific direction in remand order – Held: Assessment order passed in violation of principles of natural justice and mandatory procedure under faceless assessment framework liable to be set aside [Paras 8–11].

Remand Proceedings – Duty to Comply with Appellate Directions – Appellate Authority had set aside earlier assessment and directed fresh consideration after affording sufficient opportunity – Respondents failed to provide effective opportunity of hearing and did not permit filing of reply through portal – Passing of order without restoring access to portal or granting hearing amounts to non-compliance with remand directions – Order unsustainable in law [Paras 2, 10].

Natural Justice – Right to Be Heard – Technical Denial of Portal Access – Petitioner attempted to upload reply within stipulated time but e-filing portal showed closure of submission facility – Email reply sent after grievance not considered before passing order – Held: Denial of effective opportunity due to technical disablement of portal vitiates assessment proceedings [Paras 4, 5, 10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025 under Section 144 r/w 144B and consequential demand notice under Section 156 set aside – Petitioner permitted to file reply to show cause notice dated 16.10.2025 – Respondents directed to provide opportunity of hearing and complete assessment afresh – No order as to costs [Paras 11–12].