Consolidation Proceedings – Concurrent Findings – Interference by High Court – Limited Scope – Petitioners challenged orders of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and Deputy Director of Consolidation denying their claim based on a Will – All authorities recorded concurrent findings that Will was suspicious, not proved, and executed under questionable circumstances – Held: High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under Article 226 unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction [Paras 2, 8-13].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Unnatural Exclusion of Heirs – Petitioners claimed ownership under a Will by Kadedeen excluding his minor grandson Kamla Kant – Authorities below found that testator had cordial relations with his family and no reason was shown to exclude grandson – Will was neither proved nor supported by village witnesses – Held: Will rightly disbelieved due to suspicious circumstances and lack of legal proof [Paras 3-4, 10-12].

Procedural Fairness – Framing of Issues – No Prejudice Shown – No Objection at Trial Stage – Petitioners argued no issue framed on validity of Will – However, no objection was raised before Consolidation Officer nor evidence led on Will – Authorities below dealt with the Will despite lack of formal framing – Held: No procedural error justifying remand or interference [Paras 5, 9].

Delay – Laches – Consolidation Proceedings Filed in 1977 – Writ Filed in 1980 – No Attempt to Assert Will-based Rights for Over 20 Years – Petitioners failed to take timely steps to record their names based on Will – Held: Inordinate delay supports presumption against genuineness of Will [Paras 4, 13].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – No case for interference in concurrent findings of fact – No perversity or jurisdictional error found [Para 15].

Medical Negligence – Failed Sterilization – No Presumption of Liability – Plaintiff underwent sterilization in January 1987 but gave birth to a severely deformed child in December 1987 – Plaintiffs claimed ₹2,40,000 as compensation alleging negligent sterilization – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held there was no evidence of negligence – High Court affirmed findings, holding failure alone does not establish negligence [Paras 1–5, 8–10, 15].

Proof of Negligence – Bolam Test – Burden on Plaintiff – Relying on Shiv Ram v. State of Punjab and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, Court held that mere birth of a child post-sterilization does not prove negligence – Failure rate of 2–4 per 1000 cases acknowledged in medical literature – Plaintiff must plead and prove specific negligence, which was absent here [Paras 11–12].

Medical Termination – No Claim if Pregnancy Continued by Choice – Court held that once pregnancy occurs despite sterilization, the option of termination is available under the MTP Act – If a couple voluntarily continues pregnancy, the child cannot later be termed “unwanted” to claim compensation [Para 12.3].

Distinction in Precedents – Decisions Contrary to Shiv Ram Not Applicable – Judgments such as Smt. Shobha v. GNCT Delhi and Tmt. Dhanam v. State of Tamil Nadu held not binding, as they either pre-date or do not consider Shiv Ram – Consistent line of authority affirms no liability without proven negligence [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings upheld – No evidence of negligence – No entitlement to compensation in absence of breach of duty by surgeon [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 152 BNS – Social Media Post – Allegation of 'Pakistan Zindabad' post by applicant under a foreign national’s post – No material to show active promotion of secession or armed rebellion – Held: Section 152 BNS requires intentional incitement of secession or subversive activity – Mere expression of sentiment, even if offensive, does not fulfill statutory requirements – Bail justified in absence of prima facie intent to endanger sovereignty or unity [Paras 5-8].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Standards of Reasonable Interpretation – Apex Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat held that speech must be judged on reasonable person standard – Court emphasizes liberty under Article 19(1)(a) and cautions against overbroad criminalization of speech on social media – Police must act within constitutional limits [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – No Criminal History – Long Trial Delay – Applicant in custody since May 2025 with no prior convictions – Court applies principle of presumption of innocence and right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Cites Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and highlights prison overcrowding – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial participation – Breach of conditions to lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 10-12].

Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Petitioner No. 1, arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC, was in judicial custody since 2017 – During trial in 2024, he raised a claim of juvenility and produced a scholar register showing his date of birth as 13.12.2002 – The trial court failed to determine his age as required under Section 9(2) of JJ Act and mechanically forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board – The Board declared him juvenile on 15.05.2025 – Held: Since the claim was raised before the trial court, only the court was competent to determine age – Board’s order was without jurisdiction and a nullity – Petitioner’s continued detention in jail thereafter was illegal

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Jail – Prohibition under JJ Act – Under Section 10(1) of the Act, a child in conflict with law cannot be placed in police lock-up or jail – Even during age inquiry, such person must be kept in a place of safety – Petitioner’s detention in Naini Central Jail after raising juvenility claim was contrary to statutory mandate – Held: Present custody illegal

Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – Maintainability – Although habeas corpus is generally not maintainable against judicial remand, an exception arises where the detention is shown to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction – In present case, remand was mechanically passed without determination of age – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Juvenile in conflict with law can be detained for maximum three years under JJ Act – Petitioner had been in jail for over 8 years – Continued detention violative of Article 21 – Illegal and unconstitutional

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Writ of habeas corpus issued – Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj directed to release Petitioner No. 1 immediately – Commissioner of Police to produce Petitioner before trial court – Trial court directed to determine age under Section 9(2) JJ Act – If found juvenile, he to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for further action – If not, trial to proceed as per law

Civil Writ - SARFAESI – Classification of MSME Account as NPA – RBI Guidelines – Petitioners, an MSME unit, challenged classification of loan as NPA without following RBI circulars dated 29.05.2015, 21.07.2016 and 17.03.2016 – Alleged denial of mandatory restructuring process under RBI framework – Held: No evidence that petitioners raised the issue of MSME protection before issuance of Section 13(2) notice or in reply – Prima facie, contention of lessee operations by third party supported by bank – Ext.P10 framework not mandatorily applicable absent revival potential – Writ jurisdiction not invoked in such disputed facts [Paras 7–9, 11]

Banking Law – Interest Hike – Usurious Charges – Petitioners alleged arbitrary hike of interest from 10% to 18.15% and imposition of penal interest for SMA classifications – Contended that interest manipulation violated Central Bank of India v. Ravindra ratio – Held: Issue requires adjudication on evidence – Not fit for determination under Article 226 at threshold stage [Paras 2.1, 4.3]

Maintainability – Alternate Remedy – DRT Jurisdiction – Petitioners argued that writ is maintainable as challenge pertains to jurisdictional illegality in NPA classification – Held: Since bank has already acted under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act, and no prima facie illegality shown in NPA classification or denial of MSME framework, petitioner relegated to DRT under Section 17 SARFAESI Act – Writ dismissed with liberty [Paras 10–11]

CERSAI – Challenge to Mortgage Registration – Petitioners alleged absence of valid CERSAI registration under Section 26D SARFAESI Act – Bank produced documents showing registration of security interest – Held: No cause to interfere in writ jurisdiction on this ground [Para 2.4]

Disputed Facts – Lease to Third Party – Petitioners denied leasing operations to third party; bank relied on site visit photos and claimed unit was non-operational – Held: Disputed factual matrix regarding actual operations and eligibility under MSME revival framework not suitable for resolution under Article 226 – Left open for appropriate forum [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners at liberty to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act – No opinion expressed on merits.

Criminal Law – Murder – Single Blow – Sudden Quarrel – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for assaulting deceased Bir Singh with a lathi during a dispute over tethering of goats – Occurrence found to be sudden without premeditation – Ocular evidence of sons of deceased (P.W.9 & P.W.10) found consistent, natural and corroborated by medical evidence – Post-mortem surgeon deceased during trial – Post-mortem report prepared by Government doctor held admissible and of high probative value [Paras 25–28].

Evidence – Post-mortem Report – Non-examination of Medical Officer – Court held that post-mortem report prepared by a Government doctor in course of official duty is admissible and persuasive despite the doctor’s death – Absence of his oral testimony does not vitiate prosecution case where medical and ocular evidence otherwise consistent [Paras 27–28].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Lathi recovered on disclosure of appellant Ram Kishan corroborated prosecution version – Held an incriminating circumstance linking accused to crime [Para 29].

Culpability – Intention or Knowledge – No premeditation proved – Assault occurred in heat of moment following altercation – Only single blow inflicted on vital part of head – No evidence of repeated blows or intent to kill – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 31–34].

Sentencing – Appellants aged above 70 years – Trial pending for over two decades – Having already undergone more than five years of imprisonment – Sentence modified to period already undergone – Fine maintained [Para 35–36].

Decision: Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence restricted to period already undergone – Fine maintained – Appeal disposed of [Paras 34–37].

Hindu Marriage – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal against decree – Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and suppression of husband’s mental illness not proved – No FIR or complaint filed – Evidence produced by wife unreliable and hearsay – Husband made genuine attempts to resume cohabitation which wife refused – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – No error found in judgment of Family Court [Paras 2–5].

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Nature and Scope – Interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted during pendency of proceedings when applicant lacks independent income – Permanent alimony under Section 25 may be granted at the time of decree or subsequently – Right to maintenance available to either spouse but is discretionary – Conduct of parties is relevant consideration after 1976 amendment inserting “conduct of parties and other circumstances of the case” [Paras 7–11].

Discretionary Relief – Fault Principle – No party can take advantage of its own wrong – Maintenance cannot be claimed as of right by a spouse found at fault – However, to prevent destitution or vagrancy, Court may grant limited maintenance even to erring spouse – Quantum of maintenance to be proportionate to basic needs in such cases [Paras 11–12].

Restitution Decree – Effect on Claim for Maintenance – Court cannot direct that decree for restitution of conjugal rights shall have no effect on consideration of maintenance application – Wife, however, may apply separately for maintenance to avoid destitution; relief under Sections 24 and 25 remains discretionary and fact-dependent [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights dated 27.11.2014 in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 affirmed – No order directing that decree shall not affect claim for maintenance – Liberty reserved to appellant to apply independently for maintenance as per law [Paras 15–16].

Civil Law - Telegraph Act – Compensation for Land Damage – Finality of District Judge's Decision – Appeals were filed by farmers challenging judgments passed under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 awarding compensation for damage caused by installation of transmission lines – High Court held that under Section 16(5), such decisions are statutorily final – Consequently, no appeal under Section 96 CPC is maintainable against such judgments or decrees, irrespective of whether the District Court styled the proceedings as ‘Civil Suits’ or passed a ‘decree’ [Paras 10–14, 18].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Limitations Imposed by Special Statutes – Court observed that Section 96 CPC is subject to “express provisions” in any other law – Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act being a special provision clearly excludes appellate remedy – Drawing of a decree by the District Judge does not override statutory finality under Telegraph Act [Paras 11–13].

Judicial Guidance – Alternative Remedy under Writ Jurisdiction – In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1731, Court observed that parties aggrieved by District Court’s decision under Section 16(3) may explore remedies under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution – Supreme Court had urged the Law Commission and Government of India to consider statutory appellate remedy for such cases [Paras 15–17, 19].

Civil Procedure – Return of Plaint/Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction – Court held that since it lacked jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC due to the statutory bar under Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act, the only course was to return the First Appeals under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, and not to dismiss them – Return of appeals ordered with liberty to appellants to approach appropriate forum [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Objection to maintainability sustained – First Appeals returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for want of jurisdiction – Appellants at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy under constitutional jurisdiction as per guidance in Kalpataru judgment.

Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test Sought by Father – Request Denied – Maintenance Proceedings – Presumption of Legitimacy Upheld – Petitioner-husband challenged trial court’s refusal to order DNA testing of minor child during pendency of wife's maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC – Held: No prima facie material produced by petitioner to rebut presumption under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Mere denial of paternity not sufficient – Long delay of over 12 years from divorce and 3 years after maintenance petition remains unexplained – Legal presumption of legitimacy applies [Paras 6, 25–28, 32, 34–35].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Test – Not a Routine Measure – Right to Privacy and Dignity Considered – DNA testing involves serious privacy implications – Court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be ordered merely on suspicion or as a shortcut to prove adultery – Child’s right to identity and dignity must be prioritised – DNA test not the only method to prove infidelity or lack of paternity – Courts must balance scientific tools with constitutional rights [Paras 18–22, 35–36].

Delay – Unexplained Silence of Petitioner – Conduct Impugns Credibility of Claim – Divorce was granted in 2012 and maintenance petition filed in 2021 – DNA test application filed only in 2025 – Court found no reasonable or acceptable explanation for delay – Silence for over a decade suggests ulterior motive to humiliate the respondent and delay maintenance proceedings [Paras 25, 34, 38].

Legal Presumption – Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Conclusive Proof of Paternity During Marriage – No Proof of Non-Access – Child born during valid marriage attracts statutory presumption of legitimacy – Husband failed to prove non-access during the relevant period – Law discourages unwarranted inquiries into paternity where marriage subsisted [Paras 26–28].

Constitutional Law – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Right to Privacy – Courts Cautioned Against Intrusive Tests Without Justification – Referring to Supreme Court precedents (Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, Aparna Firodia v. Ajinkya Firodia), court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be directed unless strong prima facie case is made – Intrusive procedures like DNA testing impinge upon Article 20(3) and 21 – Such tests cannot be permitted to settle personal scores or as a weapon in matrimonial disputes [Paras 21–23, 29–31, 35–37].

Abuse of Process – DNA Petition Found Frivolous – Filed to Harass and Delay – Court found DNA application to be filed only to prolong proceedings and malign character of wife – Held: No legal justification shown to interfere with trial court order – Revision petition dismissed with observations on misuse of legal process [Paras 32, 38].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – No prima facie case made for DNA testing – No interference warranted with trial court’s well-reasoned order dated 12.06.2025 – No costs awarded – Connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Paras 38–40].