Injunction – Matrimonial Dispute – Void Marriage – Appellate court reversed trial court order and granted temporary injunction restraining petitioner from representing herself as respondent’s wife – Marriage between petitioner and respondent held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as respondent’s first marriage was subsisting – ‘Daan Patra’ and ‘Shapath Patra’ relied on by petitioner were found irrelevant in law and insufficient to confer spousal status – Held: Appellate court rightly granted injunction to protect respondent’s legal marital status – No interference called for under Article 227 [Paras 5–7]

Misrepresentation – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioner alleged deception, abuse, and fraud by respondent – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Dalpat Kumar and Wander Ltd. – Held: Petitioner failed to establish any prima facie legal right due to the subsistence of respondent’s earlier marriage – No relief can be granted to a party not approaching the court with clean hands – Appellate court's findings upheld [Paras 4–6]

Article 227 – Judicial Review – Interference under supervisory jurisdiction not warranted where appellate court has exercised lawful discretion and committed no jurisdictional error – Petition dismissed [Para 7]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Injunction granted by appellate court upheld – Petitioner has no enforceable legal right to claim status of respondent’s wife.

Anticipatory Bail – Sexual Offences Against Minor – Repeated Assault and Blackmail – Custodial Interrogation Required – Application Rejected – FIR alleged repeated sexual assault of a minor girl between 2023–2025, facilitated by threats using secretly recorded videos and conspiracy with a co-accused – FIR supported by CDR data, municipal records, and victim’s statements – Applicant sought anticipatory bail citing delay in FIR, alleged consensual adolescent relationship, and alternative age documents – Court held that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant – Allegations of coercion and digital exploitation require thorough custodial investigation – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would hinder investigation and defeat the statutory protection under POCSO [Paras 1–7, 13–15, 18–19].

Minor’s Consent – Irrelevant under POCSO – Age Dispute Must Be Tried at Trial Stage – Court reaffirmed settled position that consent of minor under 18 has no legal relevance under POCSO – Attempt to portray relationship as consensual adolescent interaction rejected – Reliance placed on multiple precedents affirming that courts cannot dilute POCSO rigour at bail stage – Alleged inconsistencies in age documents to be examined during trial – Not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail [Paras 8–12].

Digital Evidence – Disappearing Message Platforms – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation at Nascent Stage – Allegations of blackmail through Snapchat and videos necessitate forensic analysis and metadata extraction – Devices yet to be recovered – Investigation in early stages, with risk of tampering and influence if bail granted – Court found custodial interrogation essential to secure evidence and protect minor victim [Paras 13–14, 21].

Precedents – Protective Approach in POCSO Cases – Anticipatory Bail to Be Exercised Sparingly – Court relied on Varun Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Javed v. State, Prince Kumar Sharma v. State, Ram Kumar v. State, and Saiful Khan v. State – Reiterated that anticipatory bail must not be granted routinely in cases involving minors – Granting bail would send harmful societal message and jeopardise investigation [Paras 10–17].

Bail Jurisprudence – Liberty v. Investigation – Custodial Interrogation More Effective – Precedents emphasised that anticipatory bail differs fundamentally from post-arrest bail – Liberty of accused must be balanced against seriousness of offence and need for free, fair investigation – Courts must protect integrity of probe in sensitive POCSO matters [Paras 17, 22].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Court finds no ground to grant pre-arrest bail considering the seriousness of allegations, minor victim’s age, and need for custodial interrogation – Investigation must proceed without interference [Paras 18–19].

Judicial Service Examination – Answer Key Dispute – Preliminary Examination – Petitioner secured 58 marks against qualifying mark of 60 – Objected to final key answers to Questions 86 and 98 – Court held Question 98 answer inconsistent as options A and C were accepted, but B (a part of C) was disallowed – Held: Denial of mark for option B unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to 1 mark [Paras 2(iii), 13, 17]

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Misapplication in Answer Key – Question 86 asked which section reflects vicarious liability – Final answer was Section 34 IPC – Court held Section 34 deals with common intention and not vicarious liability – Based on Supreme Court ruling in Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 337 – Held: Answer to Question 86 is incorrect – Petitioner entitled to 1 additional mark [Paras 2(v), 14, 17]

Examination Law – Judicial Review of Answer Keys – Though courts usually refrain from evaluating correctness of answers in academic matters, Court held that where questions involve legal reasoning and do not require expert academic insight, interference is permissible – Respondent’s reliance on Ran Vijay Singh, Vikesh Kumar Gupta, and Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi distinguished as those involved subjective or expert-based evaluations – Held: Legal interpretation of IPC provisions falls within court’s domain [Paras 11–12, 14]

Delay in Filing Objection – Procedural Fairness – Petitioner’s objection to Question 86 raised after prescribed deadline – Court held that delay of less than 48 hours cannot defeat right to fair evaluation – Time limit not statutory – Petitioner’s right to challenge incorrect answer key upheld despite procedural lapse [Para 14]

Relief – Grace Marks Awarded – Court awarded 2 grace marks for two disputed questions – Held: Petitioner to be treated as qualified for main examination – Respondent directed to allow petitioner to pay fees and appear for main written exam on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 – Relief limited to petitioner alone to avoid disturbance of overall selection process [Paras 15, 17]

Decision: Petition allowed – Two marks awarded to petitioner – Respondent directed to permit him to appear for main written examination.

Criminal Law – Murder – Identification of Accused – Acquittal – Appellant Bhola convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly firing at deceased Rakesh Kumar during a late-night assault – FIR did not name Bhola – Appellant identified after two-month delay in test identification parade – Held: Test identification not reliable due to unexplained delay and prior acquaintance between witnesses and accused – Conviction based solely on such identification is unsafe – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 14–29]

Evidence Law – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Appellant arrested 36 days after incident – TIP held two months post-arrest without explanation – Witnesses familiar with accused from nearby village – No corroborating evidence or motive established – Held: Delay vitiates credibility of TIP, making it insufficient for conviction [Paras 18–23, 26–27]

Criminal Trial – Acquittal of Co-accused – No Specific Allegations – Other co-accused named in FIR and against whom motive was alleged were acquitted – Appellant not named, no motive proved – Held: Conviction of appellant alone without consistent or independent proof unsustainable – Trial court erred in relying on doubtful testimony and inconclusive identification [Paras 7–11, 14–16, 28]

Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Applied ratio of Harinath v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14 – Held: Identification of accused known to witnesses, residing in nearby village, after significant delay, without explaining such delay, renders TIP unreliable – Applied in acquitting appellant [Paras 24, 28]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Bhola under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by extending benefit of doubt – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 30–31]

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Service Permanent Establishment (PE) – Calculation of Threshold Period – Article 5(6)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA – Assessee, a Singapore legal firm, had employees present in India for 120 days – Assessee claimed exclusion of vacation days (36), business development days (35), and common days (5) – Held: To constitute a Service PE, services must be "furnished within" the contracting state. Vacation days where no work is performed, and business development days where no billable services are rendered to clients, must be excluded from the threshold calculation. Excluding these, the period was 84 days, falling below the 90-day threshold. No Service PE constituted. [Paras 38-40]

International Taxation – Virtual Service PE – Interpretation of Treaty – Revenue argued for "Virtual Service PE" due to remote services provided from outside India – Held: The concept of "Virtual Service PE" is not expressly provided in the India-Singapore DTAA. Article 5(6) requires services to be furnished "within" India "through employees present". Courts cannot read new concepts into the treaty which are not explicitly included. Until the treaty is renegotiated to include virtual services, existing provisions must be strictly interpreted. [Paras 42-46, 49]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Questions of law answered in favour of the Assessee. [Para 62]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Corruption/Misappropriation of Public Funds – MGNREGA Scheme – Petitioners (vendors) accused of conspiring with officials to divert funds meant for chicken coops, wells, and cattle sheds by falsifying records – Total misappropriation approx. Rs. 2 Crores – Held: In serious offences involving corruption and misappropriation of public funds, anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail and recover misappropriated amounts. Granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the investigation. [Paras 33-34]

Criminal Law – Re-transfer of Misappropriated Money – Effect on Bail – One accused argued he re-transferred money to the prime accused, showing bonafides – Held: Re-transferring money to the prime accused indicates continuation of the conspiracy and sharing of proceeds, rather than innocence. It is an aggravating factor. [Para 31]

Decision: Bail applications dismissed. Petitioners directed to surrender. [Para 35]

Arbitration Law – Contract Interpretation – Rebate for Damaged Buses – Petitioner claimed rebate for 966 damaged buses – Held: The contract was for the "fleet" of buses available, not necessarily buses actually plying. Clause 1.1.1 of Schedule-VI specifically stated that 100% of buses may not be on road due to maintenance and no claims could be raised. The Arbitrator's interpretation that no rebate was contractually due is a plausible view and does not warrant interference under Section 34. [Paras 30-33]

Arbitration Law – Public Policy – Interest on Interest – Respondent claimed interest on delayed payment charges – Held: The contract provided for delayed payment charges (which are essentially penal interest). Awarding further 18% interest on these charges amounts to "interest on interest" and is ambiguous/confusing under the contract terms. Such an award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and is set aside. [Paras 44-47]

Contract Law – Penalty vs. Reasonable Compensation – Defacement Charges – Section 74 Contract Act – Respondent claimed penalty of Rs. 1000/day/bus for non-removal of ads – Held: The stipulated amount was a penalty. The Respondent failed to prove actual loss or expenditure incurred for removing advertisements. Awarding the entire penalty amount without proof of loss violates Section 74 of the Contract Act and the ratio in Kailash Nath Associates. Award set aside on this count. [Paras 60-63]

Decision: Petition partly allowed. Award modified: Counter-claims for interest on delayed payments and defacement charges set aside. Award for RTO fees confirmed. Costs reduced. [Para 67]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Disqualification of Member of Parliament – Effect of Stay of Conviction – Petitioner sought Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 1 (Rahul Gandhi) on the ground of disqualification under Article 102 r/w Section 8(3) of the RP Act due to conviction in a defamation case – Held: Once the conviction is stayed by the Appellate Court (Supreme Court in this case), the disqualification arising out of such conviction ceases to operate from the date of the stay order. The conviction becomes non-operative, and the bar under Section 8(3) does not apply during the pendency of the appeal. – Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Election Law – Disqualification upon Conviction – Distinction between Stay of Sentence and Stay of Conviction – Held: There is a fundamental distinction between the stay of execution of sentence and the stay of conviction. Mere stay of sentence/bail does not wipe out the disqualification. However, when the conviction itself is stayed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 389 CrPC or inherent powers, the disqualification is kept in abeyance and the individual is not debarred from holding public office. [Para 13]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. [Para 20]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Appreciation of Evidence – Prosecution alleged accused abused complainant by caste and assaulted him – Held: There were material contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and eye-witnesses regarding the presence of accused and the weapon used. The FIR did not name the first accused. Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Acquittal upheld. [Paras 8.1-8.3, 10]

Criminal Law – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Section 3(1)(10) – Insult/Intimidation – Held: Every insult or intimidation does not amount to an offence under the Atrocities Act unless it is directed at the victim because they are a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. Mere utterance of indecent words without the specific intent related to caste does not constitute the offence. [Para 8.4-8.5]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Acquittal confirmed. [Para 18]