Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Condonation of Delay – Confusion due to Wrong Advocate Entry – Defendant’s request to file written statement rejected by Trial Court citing delay – Trial Court relied on records incorrectly showing Advocate Sapna Rachure as having appeared for defendant – Held: Entry of advocate’s name was due to clerical error from court office carried over from unrelated proceedings – Defendant had never engaged said advocate and had no knowledge of the proceedings – Rejection of written statement on such basis erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 9-13, 18].

Service of Summons – Disputed Signature – Bailiff Report – Trial Court relied on service report dated 28 October 2009 to presume service on defendant – Defendant contested authenticity of signature on report – Prima facie discrepancy noted by High Court – Held: Presumption of service not justified without verification – Cannot deny opportunity to defend on such contested basis [Para 16].

Access to Justice – Opportunity to Defend – Serious Nature of Defamation Suit – Court emphasized that defamation proceedings have serious reputational consequences – Fair opportunity must be given to defend – Rejection of written statement undermines justice – Permission granted to file written statement within 8 weeks [Para 18].

Judicial Error – Litigant Not to Suffer – Clerical Mistake by Court Registry – The clerical error of court registry in reflecting incorrect advocate cannot be attributed to defendant – Held: Litigants should not suffer due to mistakes of court’s administrative office – No negligence attributable to defendant – Request to impose costs rejected [Paras 13, 19].

Family Disputes – Sibling Litigation – Judicial Observation – Court expressed anguish over rising litigation between siblings over family property – Described such disputes as a misuse of judicial resources and urged for amicable resolution – Recalled spirit of festivals like Raksha Bandhan and Bhaubeej highlighting brother-sister bond [Paras 3-5, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting written statement set aside – Defendant permitted to file written statement within 8 weeks – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit in regular course without priority – No costs imposed [Paras 18, 23-24].

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on ground of cruelty – Allegations of dowry demand, forced medical tests, attempted strangulation and harassment – Evidence found unsubstantiated – Reliance on evidence from separate proceedings impermissible – No cruelty proved – Dismissal of divorce petition affirmed [Paras 10–26].

Cruelty – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegations of physical and mental cruelty must be proved by cogent, convincing and independent evidence – Mere allegations without corroboration insufficient to dissolve marriage – Family Court rightly insisted on strict proof [Paras 10, 19–21].

Medical Evidence – Alleged Forced Abdominal Scan – Appellant alleged ultrasound scan conducted to detect premarital abortion – Exhibits P2 to P4 only established that ultrasound of abdomen and pelvis was conducted on doctor’s advice – No indication of purpose being premarital abortion – Doctors not examined – Admission of appellant that respondent accompanied her for general check-up contradicted her plea – Allegation not proved [Paras 11–11.2].

Evidence from Other Proceedings – Limited Use – Appellant relied on depositions and documents from proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Exs. R30 to R32) – Held: Evidence recorded in separate proceedings cannot be mechanically relied upon in matrimonial proceedings unless witnesses are examined and evidence proved afresh – Supreme Court’s clarification while dismissing SLP reinforced such limitation [Paras 12–12.2, 14].

Attempt to Murder / Strangulation – Lack of Proof – Serious allegation of attempted strangulation unsupported by medical records, police complaint or independent witnesses – Panchayatdars not examined – Mere assertion without contemporaneous evidence insufficient to constitute cruelty [Paras 13, 14].

Dowry Demand and Criminal Proceedings – Pendency Not Proof – Registration of criminal case under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and dismissal of petition under Section 482 CrPC do not by themselves establish guilt or cruelty – Criminal trial pending – Family Court justified in not treating pendency of criminal case as proof of cruelty [Paras 17–18].

Conduct of Parties – Mental Cruelty Alleged by Respondent – Evidence indicated repeated complaints, letters to employer and RTI applications by appellant and her father – Family Court’s finding that respondent was subjected to mental harassment upheld – Appellate court found no perversity in appreciation of evidence [Paras 19–21].

Maintenance and Stridhana – No Automatic Relief – Claim of higher maintenance and non-return of stridhana rejected for want of proof – Maintenance already fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month in separate proceedings – No evidence of change in circumstances or proof of assets and liabilities – Liberty reserved to seek modification in accordance with law [Paras 22–25].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – Appellate court will not interfere with well-reasoned findings of Family Court unless perversity or misreading of evidence shown – Impugned judgment based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No ground for interference made out [Paras 21, 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24/02/2022 passed in M.C.No.241/2017 by the Family Court, Shivamogga upheld – Divorce on ground of cruelty refused – Liberty reserved to appellant to seek modification of maintenance in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Para 26].

Death Penalty – Post-Mercy Judicial Review – Article 21 – Even after confirmation of death sentence and rejection of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161, the fundamental right to life and human dignity continues to subsist – Constitutional Courts are empowered to examine supervening circumstances affecting fairness, humanity and constitutionality of execution – Scope of judicial review confined to post-conviction events without reopening guilt [Paras 25–27, 52].

Solitary Confinement – Illegal Segregation Prior to Finality of Sentence – Appellants kept in separate cells from 21.12.2006 to 2009 before exhaustion of judicial and constitutional remedies – Such segregation held illegal and violative of Article 21 – Section 30(2) of Prisons Act applicable only when death sentence becomes final, conclusive and executable – Reliance on Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration – Illegal solitary confinement itself a valid ground for commutation [Paras 28–33, 39–43, 53(i)].

Punjab Jail Manual – Statutory Segregation – Constitutional Limits – Provisions permitting confinement “apart from other prisoners” cannot be enforced to impose complete social and sensory isolation – Jail authorities lack power to add punitive solitary confinement beyond judicial sentence – Any segregation resulting in denial of sight and communication with fellow prisoners held unconstitutional [Paras 29–31, 43].

Delay in Disposal of Mercy Petitions – Executive Apathy – Mental Torture – Unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than four years attributable to State authorities at multiple stages – Failure to inform appellants of right to file mercy petitions and denial of legal aid post dismissal of review – Misrouting of mercy petitions, prolonged inaction despite repeated reminders by MHA, erroneous reliance on Sriharan judgment, and one-year delay in communicating rejection by Governor – Held: Delay caused severe mental agony and violated Article 21 [Paras 34–37, 44–49, 53(ii)].

Mercy Petition – Procedural Safeguards – Mandatory Compliance – MHA guidelines requiring immediate intimation to convicts and legal assistance for preparation of mercy petitions are binding – Non-compliance vitiates post-conviction process – Making convicts sign multiple mercy petitions without legal aid held impermissible – Procedural lapses constitute relevant supervening factor for commutation [Paras 44–50].

Gravity of Crime – Irrelevance in Post-Mercy Proceedings – Heinous nature of offence and brutality involved cannot be considered at post-mercy stage – Focus confined to delay, prison conditions, dignity, and fairness – Reliance on Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India [Paras 11, 36, 52].

Long Incarceration on Death Row – ‘Death Row Phenomenon’ – Appellants incarcerated for over twenty years under constant threat of execution – Prolonged uncertainty and psychological trauma recognised as infringement of Article 21 – Mental suffering outweighs relevance of physical health alone [Paras 35–37, 51, 53(iii)].

Maintainability – Letters Patent Appeal – Writ Based on Mercy Delay – Proceedings challenging delay in mercy petitions are independent of original conviction – Intra-court appeal maintainable against dismissal of such writ petitions – Supreme Court remand settled maintainability issue [Paras 7–8].

Sentence – Commutation – Life Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life – Cumulative effect of illegal solitary confinement, inordinate delay, prolonged incarceration and procedural lapses warranted commutation – Death sentence substituted with life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – No remission or premature release permissible – Balance struck between constitutional rights of convicts and societal interests [Paras 22, 54].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – Impugned judgment of Single Judge modified accordingly.

SARFAESI Act – Parallel Proceedings – Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners challenged SARFAESI actions under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14 after having unsuccessfully litigated in earlier writ petitions and appeals up to the Supreme Court – Held: Present writ petition barred by constructive res judicata – Petitioners impermissibly sought to relitigate issues already adjudicated finally in earlier proceedings [Paras 24-25].

Res Judicata – Fragmented Litigation – Abuse of Process – Petitioners’ attempt to question the validity of SARFAESI proceedings afresh without disclosing full litigation history amounted to strategic fragmentation – Held: Parties must place all claims and defences in one proceeding – Piecemeal litigation burdens the judicial system and is legally barred under the Henderson Principle and Explanation VII to Section 11 CPC [Paras 24-25].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Adjudication – Prior Dismissal by Apex Court – Petitioners had already pursued writ petitions, writ appeals, review petitions, and SLP before the Supreme Court which were all dismissed – Held: Judicial discipline demands that concluded controversies not be reopened under the guise of new technical challenges [Para 4].

Writ Appeal – Non-Prosecution – Appeal Dismissed – Despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, appellants repeatedly failed to appear and prosecute the appeal – Final hearing saw no representation – Held: Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – Application to implead legal heirs also dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – I.A. No. 1 of 2025 (for impleading legal heirs of deceased appellant) also dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 28.07.2025 upheld [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Electricity Act, 2003 – Theft of Electric Lines – Conviction – Accused convicted for theft of copper wires from 66 K.V. electricity transmission line under Section 136 of Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC – Prosecution proved interruption of supply, theft of 800 meters of copper wire and recovery of stolen material at the instance of accused – Conviction upheld [Paras 2, 18–21].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Recovery at Instance of Accused – Evidence of complainant (Junior Engineer, KPTCL), Assistant Lineman and Investigating Officer found cogent and reliable – Recovery of stolen copper wires and tools from Tata Sumo vehicle and forest area proved through seizure and spot mahazars – Hostility of some recovery witnesses does not demolish prosecution case when official and corroborative evidence inspires confidence [Paras 10–15, 18–20].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Independent witnesses to recovery mahazar (PWs.6 to 8) turned hostile – Held: Prosecution case does not fail merely because panch witnesses turned hostile when recovery is otherwise proved through trustworthy evidence of Investigating Officer and other witnesses [Paras 15–20].

Section 136 Electricity Act – Ingredients – Proof – Prosecution established dishonest intention, unauthorised removal of electric property, identification of stolen wires belonging to KPTCL and lack of consent of owner/licensee – Essential ingredients of offence proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8, 18–20].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Benefit of probation declined considering nature of offence involving organised theft of public utility property and gravity of economic loss caused to State electricity infrastructure [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Set-off – Section 428 Cr.P.C. – Accused arrested on 25.09.2010 and remained in custody till release on bail on 13.09.2012 – Having already undergone one year, eleven months and eighteen days of sentence out of two years imposed – Held: Entitled to set-off of period of detention under Section 428 Cr.P.C. [Paras 22–27].

Sentence – Modification – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified by granting set-off for period already undergone – No useful purpose in remanding accused to custody for remaining few days [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 136 Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified by granting benefit of set-off – Appellants directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Order].

Public Premises – Unauthorised Occupation – Expiry of Licence – Definition under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act – Licence granted up to 31.03.2011 not renewed thereafter – Mere acceptance of licence fee after expiry does not amount to implied renewal – Continued occupation after expiry of licence held unauthorised – Eviction under Section 5(1) justified [Paras 18–27].

Public Premises – Eviction Proceedings – Compliance with Procedure – Estate Officer issued notice under Section 4 – Opportunity of hearing and evidence afforded – Findings recorded after considering oral and documentary evidence – No violation of principles of natural justice – Eviction order upheld by appellate authority under Section 9 – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Paras 22–30].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction maintainable against appellate order under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act – Interference limited to jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of law – Orders of eviction found legal and proper [Paras 17, 28–30].

Public Premises – Recovery of Licence Fee – Arrears – Petitioner liable to pay licence fee at agreed rate with annual increment of 5% till date of sealing of premises – Acceptance of licence fee by authority does not regularise occupation – Order for arrears upheld [Paras 35–36].

Damages – Assessment under Section 7(2) – Requirement of Evidence – Damages must be assessed on basis of cogent evidence of market rental value – Mere reliance on internal policy insufficient – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent or comparable properties – Award of damages held unsustainable [Paras 39–40].

Shop Policy, 2014 (BHEL) – Applicability – Industrial Premises – Policy not incorporated into licence by execution of fresh deed – No renewal under policy framework – Without contractual adoption of policy, damages cannot be mechanically levied on its basis – Order granting damages under Shop Policy set aside [Paras 36–38, 40].

Damages – Exorbitant Levy – Judicial Scrutiny – Damages enhanced from ₹3,718 per month to ₹3,84,820 per month – Increase more than 100 times – Held arbitrary, excessive and without authority of law – Estate Officer exceeded jurisdiction [Para 40].

Enforcement – Removal of Belongings – Section 6 – Conditional Right – Petitioner permitted to remove temporary structures and articles subject to payment of arrears – Failure to pay arrears entitles authority to recover dues by auction [Para 41].

Decision: Eviction order under Section 5(1) upheld – Order for arrears of licence fee upheld – Order directing payment of damages under BHEL Shop Policy, 2014 set aside – Petitions partly allowed – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Regularization of Teachers – Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 57(A)(6) – Quashing of rejection order – The State Government rejected the University's proposal for confirmation of 67 teachers, including the petitioners, on the ground that Section 57(A)(6) of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2015, was not applicable to teachers of affiliated colleges receiving deficit grant-in-aid, but only to those receiving performance-based grants – The Court held that the Preamble to the 2017 amendment of Section 57(A)(6) abolished the "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti" and intended scrutiny of all teachers appointed without Bihar College Service Commission recommendation, without distinction based on the type of grant – The State's distinction was found to be misplaced and arbitrary – The impugned rejection order was quashed – The State was directed to release grants for salary and other allowances – The High Court's earlier judgments in Balram Pandey v. The State of Bihar and Ghanshyam Jha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., which quashed similar rejection orders and attained finality upon dismissal of LPAs and SLPs, were relied upon – The Court found no reason to take a divergent view – The State was directed to conduct similar exercise for the petitioners – Final Holding: The State's rejection of regularization and salary release based on the type of grant is arbitrary and contrary to the legislative intent of Section 57(A)(6) [Paras 51-58, 60-62].

Constitutional Law – Right to Livelihood – Article 21 – Forced Labour – Article 23 – Withholding of Salary – The State Government arbitrarily withheld salaries of teachers whose services were regularized by the University, without issuing any order for their removal – The Court held that no person can be asked to perform duties without being paid their due salary – Such action is in defiance of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to "forced labour" under Article 23 – The actions of the respondents were highly deprecated – The Supreme Court's dictum in Man Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., holding that salary must be paid for duties discharged even if the appointment is irregular, was cited – Final Holding: Withholding of salary for duly discharged duties, especially after regularization, violates Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution [Paras 59, 97].

Service Law – Appointment of Teachers in Constituent Colleges – Prior Approval of State Government – Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 35 – The State contended that regularization of temporary teachers in constituent colleges was not possible as relevant statutes were declared ultra vires in Shiv Narain Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., and that prior approval of the State Government was required – The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Braj Kishore Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., which held that prior approval of the State Government is not required when the post is already sanctioned and the appointment is made after advertisement and interview – The Court noted that the issues were put to rest by coordinate bench judgments which quashed similar rejection orders based on Braj Kishore Singh (supra) – Final Holding: Post-facto approval of the State Government is not required for appointments against sanctioned posts in constituent colleges, and regularization based on due process is valid [Paras 89-90, 93-96].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned orders rejecting the proposals for confirmation of services and release of grants were quashed – The State Government was directed to release funds for payment of salaries and pensionary benefits in terms of UGC pay-scale to the petitioners of all writ petitions within a period of two months – Paras [62, 63, 97, 98].

Lease Agreement – Termination by Lessee – Clause 17 – Lessee issued termination notice citing COVID-19 pandemic and force majeure – Termination under Clause 17 requires three months’ notice – Lease held terminated w.e.f. 15.12.2021 – Acceptance of termination by lessor does not amount to waiver of rent liability prior to termination [Paras 32–38].

Force Majeure – Suspension of Rent – Clause 23(a) – COVID-19 lockdowns treated as force majeure by consent of parties – Rent obligation suspended only for period during which restrictions subsisted – Parties agreed force majeure period of 252 days – Lessee liable to pay rent for balance period prior to termination [Paras 40–47, 55].

Oral Agreement – Reduction of Rent – Plea of One-Third Rent – Lessee alleged oral understanding reducing rent to one-third during pandemic – No documentary evidence – No particulars of alleged oral agreement – Held: Written registered lease cannot be novated by disputed oral understanding – Plea rejected [Paras 48–54].

Arrears of Rent – Findings of Commercial Court – Error – Commercial Court held landlord lost right to claim rent as lease was not terminated by landlord – Held erroneous – Clause enabling landlord to terminate on default does not extinguish right to recover rent – Arrears recoverable despite non-termination by lessor [Paras 56–61].

Payments Received – Nature of Payments – TDS Deduction – Amount of ₹17,24,100 paid by lessee – Deduction of TDS under Section 194-I Income Tax Act established through AIS – Payments held towards rent and not financial accommodation – Adverse inference drawn by Commercial Court held unsustainable [Paras 22–23, 56–57].

Security Deposit – Adjustment – Right to Withhold Possession – Clauses 3 and 16 – Security deposit refundable only on performance of lessee’s obligations – Lessee in arrears of rent exceeding security deposit – Lessee not entitled to withhold possession for non-refund – Withholding possession beyond termination held illegal [Paras 63–73].

Transfer of Property Act – Obligation to Deliver Possession – Section 108(q) – On determination of lease, lessee bound to hand over possession – Tenant cannot retain possession till refund of security deposit – Remedy is to sue for refund after surrender – Principles reiterated [Paras 74–76].

Mesne Profits / Damages – Measure – Agreed Rent – Lessee retained possession till 04.09.2025 – Damages quantified on basis of contractual rent slabs – Interest at 12% p.a. awarded on arrears and mesne profits – Commercial Court judgment set aside [Paras 85–86].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 16.11.2024 set aside – Suit decreed – Respondent liable to pay arrears of rent after excluding 252 days of force majeure, adjust security deposit, and pay mesne profits till 04.09.2025 with interest @ 12% per annum – Costs awarded to appellants.

Partition – Joint Family Property – Second Appeal – Divergent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Trial Court decreed suit for partition holding that suit schedule properties were ancestral and joint family properties and that alleged oral partition of 1972 and registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004 were not binding on plaintiffs – First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding that parties had already partitioned in 1972 and acted upon the same – High Court reappreciating evidence in light of substantial questions of law – Held: Findings of First Appellate Court erroneous and unsustainable – Judgment of Trial Court restored [Paras 1, 16, 31–32].

Partition – Proof of Prior Oral Partition – Unregistered Palupatti dated 03.11.1972 – Evidentiary Value – Defendants relied on unregistered document to contend severance of joint family – No cogent documentary evidence showing allotment of specific shares or mutation pursuant to 1972 partition – Revenue records and RTCs continued to reflect joint names of parties – Held: Mere plea of oral partition without reliable corroboration insufficient to prove earlier partition [Paras 4, 7, 24, 30].

Registered Partition Deed – Allegation of Fraud and Incapacity – Partition deed dated 21.12.2004 – Plaintiffs pleaded that their father was illiterate, aged, suffering from burn injuries and was taken to Sub-Registrar’s Office in an autorickshaw – Evidence of DWs admitted poor health and burn injuries of executant – No recital in registered deed regarding prior partition of 1972 – Held: Circumstances surrounding execution raise serious doubt about free and conscious consent – Trial Court rightly held partition deed not binding on plaintiffs [Paras 19–20, 25, 29–30].

Joint Re-grant of Inam Lands – Effect – Properties re-granted jointly in favour of plaintiffs’ father and defendant under Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act – Mutation entries and RTCs showed joint cultivation and possession – Subsequent grant in sole name of defendant did not negate earlier joint cultivation evidenced by records – Held: Suit properties retained joint family character and were liable for partition [Paras 18, 23–24, 31].

Evidence – Documentary Evidence versus Oral Testimony – Registered documents and revenue records showing joint names prevailed over interested oral testimony of defence witnesses – DWs found to be interested and inconsistent – Admissions by defendants regarding joint execution of sale deeds and joint dealings – Held: Trial Court correctly appreciated evidence; First Appellate Court misdirected itself in law [Paras 25–30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Whether First Appellate Court justified in reversing Trial Court decree without material proof of earlier partition – High Court held that reversal was based on inadmissible and insufficient evidence – Interference justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11, 16, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 07.02.2020 set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2019 restored.