Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 26 – Fraudulent Enrolment – Power to Remove Name from Roll – Petitioner’s licence suspended by Enrolment Committee on suspicion of misrepresentation regarding date of birth and production of unrecognized educational certificate – Contention that only Bar Council of India is competent to remove name from roll – Held: Proviso to Section 26(1) enabling power of Bar Council of India does not denude State Bar Council of its regulatory authority – State Bar Council, being authority to enrol, has incidental power to regulate and pass prohibitory/interim orders in cases of alleged fraud – Impugned order treated as recommendation for removal coupled with interim suspension – Matter directed to be referred to Bar Council of India for final decision [Paras 13, 15, 17].

Enrolment Committee – Jurisdiction – Interim Suspension – Proceedings pertain to alleged fraudulent enrolment and not professional misconduct under Section 35 – Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction under Sections 35 and 36 distinct from fraudulent enrolment cases – Enrolment Committee competent to examine propriety of enrolment and to pass interim prohibitory orders pending decision by Bar Council of India – Suspension not per se without jurisdiction but subject to expeditious reference to BCI [Paras 13, 15, 17, 18].

Interpretation of Proviso – Scope and Effect – Proviso to Section 26(1) cannot be read in isolation so as to nullify main provision conferring enrolment power on State Bar Council – Enabling provision empowering Bar Council of India to remove name does not exclude inherent or incidental power of State Bar Council to regulate its roll – Power to enrol includes power to regulate and recommend removal in case of fraud [Paras 14, 15].

Writ Jurisdiction – Equitable Directions – Considering prolonged suspension without final adjudication – Court directed State Bar Council to refer matter to Bar Council of India within specified time – Directed petitioner to surrender enrolment certificate and ID card – Provided that failure to refer matter within stipulated time would result in automatic revocation of interim suspension [Paras 17, 18, 19].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Impugned order treated as recommendation for removal with interim suspension – State Bar Council directed to refer matter to Bar Council of India – Petitioner directed to surrender enrolment certificate and ID card – Interim suspension to stand revoked automatically if reference not made within stipulated period.

Criminal Law – Bail – Illegal Detention – Applicant allegedly detained by police from 14/15.09.2025 but formal arrest shown on 17.09.2025 – Sister of applicant filed application before CJM complaining of illegal custody – Police failed to produce CCTV footage of police station despite repeated judicial directions – Held: Detention of applicant prior to formal arrest amounted to illegal detention and violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution – State directed to pay compensation of ₹1 lakh to applicant with liberty to recover the amount from erring officers [Paras 31-32].

Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Orders of Subordinate Court – SHO and Investigating Officer failed to comply with repeated orders of CJM directing production of CCTV footage of police station – Officers admitted non-compliance and tendered unconditional apology – Held: Deliberate non-compliance of orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate constitutes contempt of subordinate court – High Court exercising powers under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act held both officers guilty of contempt and sentenced them to custody till rising of the Court [Paras 23-24].

Arrest and Personal Liberty – Constitutional Safeguards – Violation of D.K. Basu Guidelines – Court reiterated that arrest procedures must comply with constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22 and statutory provisions incorporated in Cr.P.C./BNSS – Failure to inform family members and failure to maintain proper arrest records violate safeguards laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal – Such violations amount to infringement of personal liberty [Paras 13-16, 31].

Police Accountability – CCTV Cameras in Police Stations – Compliance with Supreme Court Directions – Court emphasized mandatory installation and preservation of CCTV footage in police stations as directed in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh – Practice of maintaining footage only for 2-2½ months contrary to Supreme Court mandate requiring longer storage – SHO responsible for maintenance and production of footage – Non-maintenance undermines protection against custodial abuse and illegal detention [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Authority – Status of Judicial Officers – High Court observed that judicial officers while discharging judicial functions exercise sovereign functions and their orders must be respected by administrative and executive authorities – Disobedience of orders of a Judicial Magistrate undermines rule of law and authority of courts and is punishable as contempt [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Oversight – Monitoring of CCTV Compliance – High Court directed that Chief Judicial Magistrates or jurisdictional Magistrates may randomly inspect police stations after court hours to verify functioning of CCTV cameras in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini – Such inspection shall be treated as part of official duty and police officials must cooperate [Para 27].

Bail – Grant of Bail in Financial Fraud Case – Considering illegal detention of applicant, nature of allegations, overcrowding of jails and undertaking of applicant to deposit ₹15 lakh with the finance company – Held: Applicant entitled to bail subject to conditions including cooperation in trial and payment of amount as undertaken [Paras 33-35].

Decision: Bail allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties – State directed to pay compensation of ₹1 lakh for illegal detention – SHO and Investigating Officer held guilty of contempt and sentenced to custody till rising of the Court – Directions issued to DGP, U.P. regarding compliance with CCTV guidelines and accountability of police officers.

Education Law – Amendment of Examination Bye-Laws – Requirement of Publication – CBSE Governing Body resolved on 26.12.2024 to discontinue “additional subject” category for private candidates – Approval granted by Controlling Authority on 22.01.2025 – Minutes uploaded under “Governing Body Minutes” tab on 27.02.2025 – No distinct notification or publication of amendment under Examination Bye-Laws – Held mere uploading of minutes not reasonable mode of publication – Amendment cannot be said to have come into force without proper promulgation – Subordinate legislation must be published in reasonable manner to bind affected persons [Paras 13-18].

Subordinate Legislation – Promulgation – Effectiveness – Relying on B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 1 SCC 658 – Law must be made known to those governed by it – Where parent statute or rules are silent, publication must be through reasonable and recognised mode – Posting minutes under obscure website tab not sufficient – Amendment held effective only from 15.09.2025 when formally notified [Paras 16-19].

Legitimate Expectation – Substantive Right – Clause 43(i) of unamended Bye-Laws permitted additional subject within two years of passing – Students of 2024 and 2025 batches prepared for additional subject examination in 2026 – Right founded on existing Bye-Law and consistent past practice – Denial without proper publication arbitrary – Doctrine invoked not on mere hope but on enforceable right – Action violative of Article 14 [Paras 21-24].

Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Though educational policy changes ordinarily left to experts – Court can intervene where implementation is arbitrary and violates principles of fairness – Amendment not struck down – Only held inapplicable to students who passed prior to valid publication – No necessity to challenge amendment itself [Paras 20, 25-26].

Arbitrariness – Educational Career – Insistence on applying unpublicised amendment to students who had already invested one or two years in preparation held unreasonable – Grave prejudice caused – State instrumentality under Article 12 bound by fairness and non-arbitrariness [Paras 1, 15, 26].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge directing CBSE to permit registration of students (who passed Class XII in 2024 and 2025) for “additional subject” examination upheld – Amendment to Bye-Laws held effective only from date of proper publication – CBSE directed to make necessary arrangements within three working days – No order as to costs.

Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-law from Self-acquired Property of Mother – Concurrent Findings of Courts Below – Dismissal of Second Appeal

Hindu Law – Self-acquired property of female Hindu – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – Property purchased under registered sale deed in name of mother and recorded exclusively in her name – Plea that property was purchased from joint family income rejected – Held: When property stands in name of female Hindu, she becomes full owner by virtue of Section 14 – Claim of joint family right by sons untenable in absence of proof – Suit property held exclusive property of Plaintiff [Paras 16, 17].

Benami/Jt. Family Plea – Burden of proof – Defendants alleged purchase out of joint family fund and contribution by sons – No documentary evidence adduced – Mere assertion insufficient to dislodge registered title deed and R.O.R. entries – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 8, 16, 17].

Shared Household – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Whether daughter-in-law can claim right of residence in self-acquired property of mother-in-law – Held: Where property exclusively belongs to mother-in-law and is not joint family property, it cannot be treated as “shared household” against her wishes – Provisions of D.V. Act do not create proprietary rights in self-acquired property of senior citizen – Defendants not entitled to resist eviction on that ground [Paras 13(iii), 17, 19].

Senior Citizens – Eviction of son and daughter-in-law – Right of aged parents to peaceful possession of self-acquired property – Plaintiff aged more than 75 years alleged mental and physical torture – Held: Son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to reside in self-acquired property of parents against their wishes – Courts must adopt purposive approach in favour of senior citizens – Decree for eviction and permanent injunction justified [Paras 18, 19].

Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction from residential house – Plaintiff proved exclusive ownership and unlawful interference – Defendants failed to establish any legal right to remain – Decree directing Defendants to vacate within one month and restraining re-entry upheld [Paras 9, 19].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed on contest without cost – Judgments and decrees passed in C.S. No.20 of 2019 and R.F.A. No.16 of 2023 confirmed – Eviction decree and permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff upheld [Paras 19, 20].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – 710 Days – Petitioner sought condonation under Section 5 of Limitation Act to set aside ex parte decree passed on 19.01.2017 – Application filed on 19.12.2018 – Held: Inordinate delay not properly explained – No sufficient cause shown – Dismissal of application justified [Paras 1, 6-7].

Ex Parte Decree – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Allegation that counsel failed to inform about progress of case – Petitioner failed to disclose name of counsel allegedly engaged – No evidence adduced to substantiate plea – Petitioner admitted receipt of summons in suit – Held: Bald allegation of counsel’s omission without proof insufficient to set aside ex parte decree [Paras 3, 7].

Sufficient Cause – Meaning and Scope – ‘Sufficient cause’ implies absence of negligence and existence of bona fides – Defendant must show he was not negligent or lacking diligence – Petitioner remained inactive until receipt of execution notice – Held: Petitioner not diligent or vigilant – No bona fide explanation established [Para 7].

Burden of Proof – Party seeking condonation must adduce evidence to prove truth and bona fides of reasons stated – Petitioner failed to step into witness box or adduce supporting evidence – Held: Failure to prove cause fatal to application [Para 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – No Interference – Concurrent findings of Munsiff and District Court that sufficient cause not made out – No perversity or illegality shown – Held: No ground to interfere in revision [Paras 3-4, 7].

Parallel Proceedings – Existence of subsequent suit (O.S. No.93 of 2019) noted by Appellate Court – Even if ex parte decree set aside, decree subject to outcome of later suit – Observation not decisive but reinforces absence of prejudice warranting interference [Para 4].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Orders of Munsiff dismissing I.A. Nos. 2899/2018 and 2900/2018 and judgment in C.M.A. No.45/2022 affirmed [Para 7].

Conviction under Section 498A IPC for matrimonial cruelty confirmed in revision – Sentence reduced from one year to six months simple imprisonment – Delay in lodging complaint held not fatal in cases of matrimonial cruelty being a continuing offence – Testimony of victim to be appreciated with sensitivity and realism.

“The Silent Suffering of Matrimonial Cruelty” – Section 498A IPC – Conviction Confirmed – Revision Petitioner/husband convicted for subjecting his wife (PW1) to cruelty by demanding dowry and physically assaulting her – During the first trimester of pregnancy, the accused beat PW1 with a tube light frame causing injuries – PW1 had to take refuge in the neighbouring house of PW2 – Wound certificate (Ext.P8(a)) corroborated the injuries – Held: Version of PW1 is natural, cogent and inspires confidence – Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed [Paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25].

“Delay in Reporting Does Not Erode Credibility” – Matrimonial Cruelty as a Continuing Offence – Contention that delay in lodging complaint is fatal to the prosecution case – Held: Matrimonial cruelty is a continuing offence where suffering does not end with a single incident – Victims endure cruelty silently for compelling reasons including hope for reconciliation, family pressure, social stigma, economic dependence and emotional trauma – Delay does not necessarily erode credibility provided the prosecution version is otherwise believable – Reliance placed on V.K. Mishra and another v. State of Uttarakhand [Paras 20, 21, 22, 23].

“No Hyper-Technical Approach in Matrimonial Cruelty Cases” – Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of victim of matrimonial cruelty must be appreciated with sensitivity and realism – A hyper-technical approach would defeat the very object of Section 498A IPC – PW1 being a rustic village woman, slight discrepancies in narrating dates cannot be considered fatal [Paras 24, 25].

“Downry Demands: Not a Domestic Dispute but Gender-Based Violence” – Assaulting the wife in connection with dowry demands is not a mere domestic dispute but a serious offence rooted in greed, coercion and gender-based violence – Physical harm inflicted because the wife or her family cannot meet unlawful dowry demands reflects deliberate and oppressive misuse of power within the matrimonial home [Para 26].

“Leniency in Sentence” – Reduction of Sentence – Appellate Court had modified the sentence from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year simple imprisonment – On request of amicus curiae for leniency, the High Court further reduced the substantive sentence to six months simple imprisonment with fine of ₹5,000/- [Paras 29, 30, 31].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed in part – Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed – Sentence modified to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9 – Maintainability – Court must first prima facie ascertain existence of arbitration agreement before granting interim relief – Scope of enquiry under Section 9 analogous to Section 11 – Court to conduct only prima facie scrutiny of existence of arbitration agreement – Detailed adjudication reserved for Arbitral Tribunal – Held: In absence of prima facie arbitration agreement, petition not maintainable [Paras 54-60, 95-96].

Arbitration Agreement – Incorporation by Reference – Petitioners contended arbitration clause in original Loan Agreements stood incorporated into Draft Restructuring Agreement – Clause 7(i) of draft only made general reference to earlier documents – No specific reference to arbitration clause – Exclusive jurisdiction clause in draft conferred jurisdiction on courts at New Delhi – Held: Mere general reference insufficient – No conscious acceptance of arbitration clause – Arbitration clause not incorporated by reference [Paras 65-75].

Novation – Section 62 Contract Act – Petitioners’ stand inconsistent – At one stage alleged novation, at another relied on original arbitration clause – If original contract novated, arbitration clause therein would also perish – Draft restructuring agreement not finalised – Held: No prima facie novation established – Foundational inconsistency undermines case [Paras 61-64].

Concluded Contract – Settlement – Essential Terms – Petitioners relied on email dated 30.12.2024 and court-recorded statements as concluded settlement – Record showed continuous negotiations, exchange of drafts, open issues and blanks in material clauses – Essential terms including settlement amount, repayment schedule, interest and securities left blank – Email dated 16.07.2025 rejected proposal – Held: No consensus ad idem – No concluded and binding contract came into existence [Paras 77-84, 87-90].

Specific Performance – Interim Relief – Petition sought stay of email rejecting restructuring and restraint on coercive steps – Grant of relief would amount to enforcing draft restructuring proposal – Court cannot create or enforce contract where none exists – Under Section 9, Court’s power limited to preservation of subject matter and not specific performance – Held: Relief sought impermissible in Section 9 proceedings [Paras 89-93].

IBC Proceedings – Anti-suit/Anti-tribunal Injunction – Since no prima facie arbitration agreement or concluded settlement found, question of staying Section 7 IBC proceedings or restraining statutory remedies under SARFAESI does not arise – Issues regarding bar under IBC left open [Paras 95-96].

Decision: Interim order dated 26.09.2025 vacated – O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 330/2025 dismissed – O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 367/2025 dismissed as covered by same reasoning – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 97-101].

Electronic Evidence – Right to Cloned Copy – Hash Value – Fair Trial – Accused in a Prevention of Corruption Act case sought supply of a cloned copy of the original digital voice recording with hash value and production of the original recording device, alleging that only a CD without hash value was furnished, which was not an authenticated copy – Trial Court rejected the applications – Held: Electronic records constitute "documents" within Section 3 of the Evidence Act – Contents of memory card/digital recording device must be furnished to the accused in the form of a cloned copy – Supply of an uncertified CD not prepared through hash-value authentication does not fulfill the statutory mandate under Section 207 CrPC – Denial of cloned copy with hash value impinges upon the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order quashed to the extent of refusing supply of clone copy – Trial Court directed to provide cloned copy of the original digital recording with hash value to the petitioner.

Section 207 CrPC – Disclosure of Electronic Records – Section 207 CrPC places an obligation on the prosecution to furnish all documents forming part of the investigation record to enable the accused to effectively defend the case – Section 207 does not empower the Court to withhold any document submitted with the police report except where voluminous – For electronic records, the ground of being voluminous ordinarily cannot be invoked – Accused is entitled as of right to a cloned copy of the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution [Para throughout].

Electronic Evidence – Forensic Attributes – Authenticity and Integrity – Electronic records possess inherent forensic attributes essential for examining integrity and authenticity – Cloned copy with hash value is necessary to authenticate the chain of electronic record – Without such safeguards it cannot be concluded that electronic material has been preserved and produced in authenticated manner – Denial of cloned copies causes prejudice to accused's right to effective defence [Para throughout].

Decision: Criminal Misc. Petition partly allowed – Impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Court), Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No. 02/2025 quashed and set aside to the extent of refusing supply of clone copy of the recording – Trial Court directed to provide cloned copy of the original digital recording with hash value to the petitioner – Questions regarding production of original DVR, other documents and manipulation in the CD tendered to be decided at the appropriate stage during trial.

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Land Reserved for Public Park under Town Planning Scheme – Six-Month Limitation under Section 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act – Scope and Applicability – Appellant raised construction without sanction on land forming part of Town Planning Scheme No. 13 reserved as green park – Notice for demolition issued under Sections 195, 195-A and 172 of the Act – Trial Court decreed suit holding notice time-barred and construction condoned by grant of water and sewerage connections – First Appellate Court reversed decree – Held: Six-month limitation under Section 195 applies to procedural irregularities on land otherwise capable of lawful construction and does not legalise construction raised in violation of statutory reservation under Section 192 – Efflux of time cannot validate encroachment on land reserved for public purpose – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-18, 24-25].

Town Planning Scheme – Reservation of Land for Green Park – Statutory Duty of Municipal Committee – Construction raised without sanction on land earmarked for public open space under sanctioned scheme (Ex. D6) – Appellant admitted no site plan submitted under Section 189 – Held: Construction fundamentally illegal and contrary to statutory scheme – Municipal Committee duty-bound to protect public land and invoke Section 195 – Public interest in preserving green spaces overrides individual claim [Paras 13, 16-18].

Limitation – Section 195 Punjab Municipal Act – Distinction between Procedural Violation and Substantive Illegality – Six-month period for issuance of demolition notice cannot be treated as sacrosanct where construction violates town planning reservation – Provision presupposes lawful underlying right to build – Where land reserved for public purpose, limitation does not confer legitimacy – Reliance placed on Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Municipal Committee v. Om Parkash [Paras 14-16].

Grant of Municipal Amenities – Effect – Provision of water and sewerage connections – Whether amounts to regularisation – Held: Grant of civic amenities is administrative facilitation and does not amount to sanction, condonation or regularisation of illegal construction – Regularisation must flow from statutory authority and not by implication or acquiescence [Para 20].

Injunction – Public Property – Stricter Equitable Test – Appellant merely co-sharer in undivided khasra without sanctioned plan – Suit land part of notified scheme reserved for park – Held: In cases involving public property, Court must consider public interest in addition to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury – Public interest paramount – No injunction can be granted to protect unauthorized construction on reserved public land – Trial Court erred – First Appellate Court rightly reversed decree [Paras 21-23].

Second Appeal – Scope in Punjab and Haryana – Appeals governed by Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act and not Section 100 CPC – No substantial question of law required to be framed – Findings of First Appellate Court neither perverse nor illegal – No ground for interference [Para 10, 24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 17.04.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur upheld – Municipal Committee at liberty to proceed in accordance with law – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Paras 25-26].