Recovery Suit – Negligence of Employee – Corporation Alleged Loss of Stocks and Excess Gunny Bags – Departmental Enquiry Established Liability – Trial Court Partly Decreed Suit – Lower Appellate Court Reversed on Ground of Limitation – In Second Appeal, High Court confined to issue of limitation [Paras 1-7, 11-15, 19].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Commencement from Date of Knowledge – Corporation acquired knowledge of excess bags in 1988 and shortage of wheat on 09.01.1989 – Suit filed on 16.07.1992 – Held barred by three-year limitation under Article 58 of Limitation Act – Plea that limitation starts from date of final determination of loss rejected [Paras 20-22].

Case Law – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Court applied ratio in Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 779, reiterating that limitation begins when cause of action first accrues or from date of knowledge – Distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” rejected – Suit beyond time barred under Section 3 of Limitation Act [Paras 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Lower Appellate Court upholding bar of limitation sustained – No infirmity or illegality found – Cross-objections and pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Seven eyewitnesses deposed that appellants 2, 3 & 4 restrained the deceased while appellant 1 stabbed his neck and chest – Medical evidence corroborated deep clean cut injuries – Court held appellants acted in concert with predetermined plan – Non-mention of Section 34 in trial court’s judgment held inadvertent error – Conviction sustained under Section 302/34 IPC [Paras 32–36, 47–51].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony and Minor Discrepancies – Minor contradictions regarding exact location (front/rear gate), number of persons present, or precise wound sites not fatal – Court reiterated principle that minor inconsistencies do not erode core prosecution case when multiple eyewitnesses inspire confidence – [Paras 37–42].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Though trial court did not base conviction on dying declaration, evidence of PW-6, PW-8 and PW-13 indicated deceased named appellants – Court held ocular testimony of eyewitnesses sufficient; motive not essential where direct evidence exists – [Paras 32, 38, 44].

Alibi Defence – Rejected – Appellants claimed absence from scene; Court held burden of strict proof not discharged – Presence established by credible eyewitnesses – Plea of alibi disbelieved [Paras 43].

FIR and GD Entry – Delay Explained – GD Entry at 8 p.m. followed by FIR at 11 p.m. – Court held delay not fatal where evidence consistent; absence of accused names in GD entry not decisive – FIR with names and subsequent chargesheet valid [Paras 46].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Life sentence and fine confirmed – No interference warranted [Paras 51–52].

Education Law - Foreign Medical Graduates – Internship Requirement – Covid-19 and Ukraine War – NMC Circulars Valid – Petitioners (FMGs from Bukovinian University) sought one-year CRMI citing physical classes and Ext. P1 NMC notice dated 19.06.2024 – Respondent Council insisted on two-year CRMI per later NMC notices dated 07.06.2024 and 09.05.2023 – Held: Petitioners admittedly had online classes during course period – NMC directed all such FMGs to undergo two/three-year CRMI – Council bound to follow – Writ dismissed [Paras 2-6, 10-15].

Certificates from Foreign Universities – Evidentiary Value – Rejected by NMC – NMC found certificates issued by medical universities abroad claiming “compensated offline classes” to be indiscriminate and unreliable – Directed that such certificates cannot be accepted – Petitioners’ reliance on compensation letters from Bukovinian University rejected [Paras 8-9, 13-14].

Internship Condition – Acceptance by Petitioners – Estoppel – Petitioners accepted provisional registration certificates issued by Kerala State Medical Council specifying two-year internship – Attempt to later challenge condition not sustainable – Petition dismissed [Para 15].

Public Interest – NMC Decision Binding – Extension of internship duration upheld as a measure to ensure competence of FMGs who missed full physical training due to Covid-19/Ukraine War – High Court cannot dilute national policy framed by statutory regulator in public interest [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners required to complete two-year CRMI as per NMC directives – No merit in challenge [Para 15].

Quick Capsule – Pension Scheme – LIC v. HIMUDA retirees – Contract concluded in 2008 with Trust Deed and disbursement of pension – Master Policy of 2010 cannot override agreed terms – LIC estopped from altering obligations – Appeals dismissed, widows’ petitions allowed, pension/family pension to be released [Paras 23–33].

Pension Scheme – Contractual finality – Scheme of Group Superannuation (DA linked) approved by State Govt. on 10.11.2008 – Trust Deed executed and over ₹21 crores deposited with LIC – LIC began disbursing pension – Held: contract concluded in 2008; Master Policy of 2010 was only supplementary, not to supplant agreed terms [Paras 8–11, 26–28].

LIC – Estoppel – Having accepted funds and commenced disbursement, LIC estopped from relying on later Master Policy clauses inconsistent with original Scheme – Plea of HIMUDA/employees being estopped rejected – Estoppel applied against LIC [Paras 24–25].

Master Policy v. Scheme – Even if Master Policy considered final, its terms cannot conflict with prior agreed Scheme – Doctrine of “blue pencil” applied – Clauses in conflict with Pension Scheme treated as void/non-existent – Consistent with SC precedents on adhesion contracts and insurer’s duty of good faith [Paras 27–29].

Maintainability – Locus standi – Employees and HIMUDA held competent to challenge LIC’s actions – LIC’s contention that only Trust had locus rejected – HIMUDA and retirees direct beneficiaries of scheme; writ maintainable [Paras 23–24].

Public law remedy – Disputed questions of fact – Court held issue was purely contractual interpretation based on admitted documents (Scheme, Trust Deed, deposits) – No oral evidence required – Writ petitions maintainable under Article 226 [Para 30].

Insurance contracts – Duty of disclosure & fairness – LIC bound to disclose exclusion clauses; cannot introduce unilateral terms post-contract – Court relied on Texco Marketing v. Tata AIG (2023) 1 SCC 428; Bharat Watch Co. v. National Insurance Co. (2019) 6 SCC 212 – Applied doctrine of uberrimae fidei [Paras 18–22].

Disposition – Appeals (LPA 45–48/2019) dismissed – Writ petitions (CWP 2776/2022 & CWPOA 6554/2020) allowed – LIC directed to pay pension/family pension strictly as per 2008 Pension Scheme and Trust Deed – No new demands permissible – Pending applications disposed [Paras 33–34].

Arms Act, 1959 – S. 25 – licensed Punjab weapon carried ~100 yards into Chandigarh bus route while petitioner asleep – no conscious possession, mens rea, or proof of territorial breach – conviction set aside, acquittal ordered.

Arms Act – Section 25 – Licensed Weapon Carried Beyond Jurisdiction – Acquittal – Petitioner held valid Punjab license for .32 bore revolver and 16 live cartridges – boarded bus from Jalandhar to Mohali with ticket purchased for Phase 6 Mohali – fell asleep and bus entered ~100 yards into U.T. Chandigarh – Held: No conscious possession or intent to violate law; prosecution failed to prove wilful disobedience or territorial transgression; conviction unsustainable [Paras 11-16, 20-23].

Criminal Law – Mens Rea – Conscious Possession – Requirement – Courts emphasized that ‘possession’ under Section 25 Arms Act must be conscious and intentional – absence of mens rea or unlawful objective negates offence – Delhi High Court precedents (Sonam Chaudhary; Mohd Tarique Rehman) applied [Paras 17, 20-22].

Evidence – Failure of Prosecution – No Proof of Prior Information or Location – Alleged wireless tip-off not substantiated; no record or official notification showing naka was beyond Punjab boundary – Prosecution failed to establish essential elements of offence [Paras 13-15, 23].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of all charges [Para 24].

Arms Act, 1959 – S. 25 – licensed Punjab weapon carried ~100 yards into Chandigarh bus route while petitioner asleep – no conscious possession, mens rea, or proof of territorial breach – conviction set aside, acquittal ordered

GST – Search and Seizure – Section 67 CGST Act – Delhi HC upholds July 2025 raids on Gumber family firms; validates “reasons to believe” but directs safeguards on CCTV privacy, lawful access, official communications, and adjudication of coercion allegations.

GST Search and Seizure – Section 67 CGST Act – Validity and Safeguards – Surprise search of Gumber family firms upheld; Court finds “reasons to believe” properly recorded – However, directs safeguards: CCTV footage from residence to be accessed only in presence of family; entry via tenant’s keys cautioned against; all communications to be official (email, not WhatsApp); allegations of coercion to be tested in adjudication – Petitions disposed with directions [Paras 21-23, 33-41].

Privacy and CCTV Seizure – Right to privacy of family members must be protected – Residential CCTV data to be viewed only in presence of family/representative; only relevant data may be copied, balance to be returned [Paras 34-36, 40(1)].

Access to Business Premises – Tenant’s keys used to enter premises – Court holds not unlawful in facts, but ordinarily access must be provided by investigated person; if denied, locks may be broken under Section 67(4) with reasons recorded [Paras 37-38, 40(2)].

Official Communications – Email/WhatsApp – All GST communications must be via official email with officer’s designation; WhatsApp only in exceptional emergencies; informal channels deprecated [Para 40(3)].

Alleged Coercion – Payments and refund withdrawals claimed under duress – Competing versions noted – Issue left to be examined in show cause/adjudication proceedings; refunds may be revived if petitioners succeed [Paras 12, 40(4)].

Precedents – R.J. Trading (Del HC, 2021), Santosh Kumar Gupta (Del HC, 2023), Deepak Khandelwal (Del HC 2023; SC 2024 dismissal of SLP), ITC Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (SC 2025) – Principles of “reasons to believe” and due process reiterated [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Searches valid and not contrary to law – Court issues systemic directions on privacy, lawful access, official communication, and adjudication safeguards – Petitions disposed with liberty to raise all issues in SCN/adjudication [Paras 39-45].

Civil Law - Execution Appeal – Interpretation of Decree – Section 34 CPC – Appeal Dismissed – The Decree Holder filed an execution appeal challenging the Executing Court’s orders restricting pendente lite and future interest to the principal sum of Rs.10,50,000/- instead of the full decretal amount of Rs.14,28,000/- which included Rs.3,78,000/- as pre-suit interest – Held: Interest awarded under Section 34 CPC can only be on the principal sum adjudged, and not on pre-suit interest – The Executing Court rightly interpreted the decree to prevent compound interest – No error or modification of decree was made by the Executing Court [Paras 9-13].

Interest upon Interest – Not Permissible in Execution – Clarified – Citing Supreme Court ruling in Canara Bank v. M. Amarender Reddy (2017) 4 SCC 735 – The Court reiterated that unless permitted by statute or contract, awarding interest on pre-suit interest is impermissible – Executing Court correctly limited the execution to lawful interest on the principal insured value [Paras 10-12].

Final Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court affirmed the orders of the Executing Court dated 12.07.2024 and 06.08.2024 – Clarified that interest shall be confined to Rs.10,50,000/- and not the aggregate of Rs.14,28,000/- – Execution confined within legal boundaries and decree properly interpreted – No interference warranted [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Law – Cheque Bounce - Power of Attorney – Locus Standi and Knowledge of Transaction – Section 138 of NIA – Complaint Filed by Power of Attorney Holder – Not Maintainable - The complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder neither witnessed the transaction nor had sufficient knowledge of the facts as required under law – The Supreme Court mandates specific assertions about the POA holder’s knowledge in the complaint and evidence – Held: The complaint and evidence did not meet the legal threshold; hence, POA holder's testimony was insufficient [Paras 13-16, 25].

Legally Enforceable Debt – Presumption Not Rebutted – Insufficient Proof – Dishonour of Cheque – Complainant Failed to Prove Debt – No Documentary Evidence – The applicant failed to establish that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt – No agreement to sale or transaction document was produced – Held: In absence of such documents, presumption under Section 139 stands rebutted, and Section 138 is not attracted [Paras 17-23].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability – Accused Not Required to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: Accused can rebut presumption under Section 139 of NIA through cross-examination and circumstantial evidence – Burden discharged adequately [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Acquittal Upheld – The Appellate Court’s finding that there was no legal and enforceable liability was correct – No illegality or perversity found in judgment – Revision dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law - Rape – Appeal Against Acquittal – Standard of Review – No Interference – State challenged acquittal in rape case – Held: Acquittal grants double presumption of innocence – Unless findings are perverse, Appellate Court must refrain from interfering – Trial Court’s view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5, 9, 23].

Prosecutrix’s Testimony – Requirement of Sterling Quality – Not Met – Sole testimony of prosecutrix can sustain conviction if it inspires confidence – In present case, her version found improbable, inconsistent, and lacking natural conduct during and after incident – Absence of injuries and contradictions undermined credibility – Not a "sterling witness" as per Supreme Court precedent – Conviction cannot be based on her statement alone [Paras 14-18, 21-22].

Medical and Circumstantial Evidence – No Support to Prosecution Case – Medical report showed no injuries or signs of resistance – Lack of physical or circumstantial corroboration of forced sexual act – Conduct of prosecutrix, including delay in reporting and failure to inform close relatives, found unnatural – Supports conclusion of consensual interaction or false implication [Paras 16-20].

Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence – Higher Degree of Proof in Serious Offences – Court reaffirmed strict standards for conviction in offences like rape – Presumption of innocence reinforced on acquittal – When testimony is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to accused – Reversal of acquittal without compelling grounds impermissible [Paras 9, 22-23].

Final Outcome – Acquittal Upheld – Bail Bonds Directed Under BNSS – High Court found no error in Trial Court judgment – Appeal dismissed – Respondent directed to furnish bail bond under Section 481 of BNSS in event of SLP before Supreme Court [Paras 23-24].