Tenancy Law - Eviction – Concurrent Findings – Article 227 Jurisdiction – Tenant challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by Rent Court (RLTOP No. 402 of 2020) and confirmed by Rent Tribunal (RLTA No. 52 of 2025) – Defence raised that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and that landlord’s claim as legatee/foster son under unprobated Will was unsustainable – Held: Identical defence already rejected by Court in connected revisions relating to same premises – No ground to interfere under Article 227 – Revision dismissed [Paras 2–3, 7].

Jural Relationship – Challenge by Tenant – Tenant questioned locus of landlord on ground that Will remained unprobated and landlord was not sole legal heir – Court declined to re-examine issue in view of earlier decision in connected matters confirming landlord’s entitlement to maintain eviction proceedings [Paras 2–3, 7].

Arrears of Rent – Distress Proceedings – Tenant admittedly in arrears of Rs.2,62,300/- representing 43 months’ rent @ Rs.6,100/- per month – Earlier distress application allowed and partial payment made – Continued default noted by Court while considering grant of time [Paras 5–6].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Though revision dismissed, considering that petitioner was carrying on non-residential jewellery business, Court granted time till 30.06.2026 to vacate, subject to conditions: filing affidavit of undertaking, clearing arrears within stipulated time, and not inducting third parties [Para 7].

Conditional Order – Modification on Mention – On mention, Court recorded payment of Rs.62,300/- and permitted balance Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid in four equal monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- each in March, April, May and June 2026 – Directed regular monthly rent from January 2026 to be paid in advance on or before 10th of every month [Order dated 05.02.2026, Paras 3–5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – In absence of perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent eviction orders, High Court declined to interfere under Article 227, granting only equitable time to vacate [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Time granted to vacate premises on or before 30.06.2026 subject to conditions regarding affidavit of undertaking, payment of arrears and regular payment of rent – Subsequent order permitting instalment payment of arrears – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

NDPS Act – Supurdnama of Seized Vehicle – Owner-cum-Driver Accused – Joint Possession of Contraband – Refusal of Interim Custody Justified – Applicant sought interim release of Pick-up vehicle seized in Crime No.397/2025 registered under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act – Vehicle registered in applicant’s name and contraband (18 kg 600 gms ganja) recovered from joint possession of applicant and co-accused – Applicant arrayed as accused and also driver of vehicle – Held: Case falls within first/second category of seizure where owner/driver is accused – Vehicle cannot be released till reverse burden is discharged – Order rejecting Supurdnama not perverse [Paras 9–12, 16–19].

Supreme Court Guidelines – Bishwajit Dey / Denash Case – No Straight-Jacket Formula – Facts Distinguishable – Supreme Court held that release of vehicle depends on factual matrix and is not automatic – In Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, vehicle released as owner was not accused and contraband carried without owner’s knowledge along with lawful cargo – In present case, owner himself was driving vehicle and no other lawful cargo was being carried – Held: Benefit of Denash judgment not applicable [Paras 13–17].

Section 451 CrPC – Discretion of Trial Court – Limited Scope of Revisional Interference – Interim custody of seized property is discretionary – Revisional Court will interfere only if order is arbitrary or perverse – Trial court considered nature of offence, role of accused and seizure circumstances – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference [Paras 8, 19].

NDPS Offences – Reverse Burden of Proof – Impact on Release of Conveyance – Where owner is directly involved in transportation of contraband, presumption under NDPS Act operates – Vehicle forms part of offence and may be liable for confiscation – Held: Release at interim stage would defeat statutory scheme [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 31.12.2025 rejecting Supurdnama application affirmed – No interference warranted.

Judicial Review – Academic Matters – Articles 226 & 227, Constitution of India – Dismissed – Courts and Tribunals in writ jurisdiction do not re-assess answer keys or academic judgments of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) unless decision-making is vitiated by patent illegality or arbitrariness – Judicial interference is rare, for material error, especially where re-evaluation rules are absent – Academic matters are for academic authorities, courts lack expertise – Correctness of evaluation presumed, benefit of doubt to examining authority – Judicial review in technical/multi-disciplinary exams is strictly circumscribed – Intervention only for clear error of law, patent arbitrariness, or manifest procedural impropriety – High Court upheld Tribunal's non-interference with SSC's CGLE 2024 evaluation, finding no patent illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety [Paras 15-22, 32].

Competitive Examinations – Grace Marks/Bonus Marks – Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2024 – Upheld (with observations) – Uniform grant of grace marks for 22 questions to all candidates, including non-attempters or incorrect answerers, deviates seriously from competitive merit and procedural fairness – This magnitude of revisions indicates systemic lapse in question paper framing, vetting, and answer key finalisation, including translation parity issues – Policy of extending benefit for invalid questions has discernible logic to mitigate unintended prejudice but must be an exception, not masking systemic deficiencies – Rationale for uniform marks for incorrect/ambiguous/multiple correct answers' questions cannot be entirely rejected, as discerning candidates might avoid doubtful questions due to negative marking – Court acknowledged petitioners' instances of typographical errors where correct options were deducible but held that once examining authority, based on expert opinion, treated questions as ambiguous and adopted uniform moderation, court cannot substitute its own assessment for SMEs' [Paras 9, 23, 25, 27].

Examination Procedure – Final Answer Key – Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2024 – Upheld (with observations) – Declaring final results before final answer key publication insulated SSC's decision-making from timely scrutiny, creating a fait accompli and shielding systemic errors – This reflects casualness and lack of rigour – Though not pressed before Tribunal, the anomaly where a candidate attempting correctly in one language suffers due to defects in another, while non-attempters benefit, highlights need for clear, consistent, transparent policies for ambiguous/defective questions – Court expects SSC to adopt circumspect and systematic approach in framing, vetting, and finalising question papers and answer keys, and institutionalise clear, transparent policy for addressing ambiguities and objections to enhance credibility and reduce litigation [Paras 28, 30, 31].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned Orders are upheld – All pending applications also stand disposed of [Paras 34, 35].

Gangster Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Solitary Base Case – Validity of Gang Chart – Application under Section 528 BNSS filed seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act, including charge-sheet and cognizance order – Applicant contended that initiation of Gangster Act proceedings on the basis of a solitary case was impermissible and contrary to the Gangster Rules, 2021 – Held: In view of Rule 22 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 and law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of a single case – No illegality found on this ground [Paras 4, 10, 28–29].

Gang Chart – Compliance with Rule 5(3) – Joint Meeting and Satisfaction of Authorities – Challenge raised on the ground that gang chart was approved without due discussion and joint meeting – Court found that gang chart was prepared and approved on 21.09.2024 after completion of investigation of the base case and after a joint meeting – Satisfaction of forwarding and approving authorities recorded in their own handwriting – Held: Requirements of Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 16 duly complied with – Case distinguishable from Sanni Mishra, Mohd. Arif @ Guddu and Vinod Bihari Lal [Paras 7–9, 13, 18].

Rule 5(3)(c) – Completion of Investigation of Base Case – Applicant contended that gang chart was approved prior to completion of investigation of the base case – Court noted that charge-sheet in the base case was prepared on 20.09.2024 and gang chart was prepared on 21.09.2024 – Held: Statutory requirement that investigation must be completed prior to approval of gang chart was fully satisfied – No violation of Rule 5(3)(c) [Paras 3, 8, 21].

Rule 8(2) – Allegation of False or Unconfirmed Information – Submission that unverified and false information was entered in the gang chart – Applicant failed to point out any specific false entry – Court held that status of base case and relevant particulars were correctly mentioned – No violation of Rule 8(2) established [Paras 9, 16, 26].

Rule 10 – Requirement of Certified Copy of Charge-Sheet – Argument that certified copy of charge-sheet was not annexed with the gang chart – Court relying on Ambuj Parag Dubey and Narendra Kumar held that Rule 10 does not require a certified copy issued by the court – Copy of charge-sheet prepared and certified by the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation is sufficient – Held: No violation of Rule 10(1) [Paras 9, 21–25].

Rule 16 & Rule 17 – Independent Application of Mind – Applicant alleged mechanical approval of gang chart – Court found that authorities recorded satisfaction independently and not by signing a pre-printed proforma – Held: Mandatory requirement of independent application of mind under Rules 16 and 17 complied with [Paras 13, 18, 29].

Scope of Interference under Section 528 BNSS – Court reiterated that at the stage of quashing, it cannot undertake a roving enquiry into sufficiency of evidence – Once statutory procedure under the Gangster Act and Rules is followed, proceedings cannot be quashed merely on technical objections – Application held devoid of merit [Paras 11, 29–30].

Decision: Application dismissed – Proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act upheld – No order as to costs.

Partition – Joint Sale Deed – Presumption of Co-Ownership – Suit property purchased under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) dated 08.05.1995 in joint names of plaintiff and defendant – Defendant contended entire consideration paid by him and plaintiff was a name lender – Held: When sale deed stands in joint names, parties are presumed to be co-owners – Mere plea of payment of entire sale consideration insufficient to dislodge presumption without cogent evidence – Plaintiff entitled to seek partition and separate possession of half share [Paras 2, 11–12].

Adverse Possession – Between Co-Owners – Ouster – Defendant pleaded exclusive possession since 1995 and perfection of title by adverse possession – Held: Mere long or exclusive possession by one co-owner does not amount to ouster – To establish adverse possession against co-owner, clear proof of hostile animus, open and exclusive possession to knowledge of other co-owner for statutory period is required – No evidence adduced by defendant to prove ouster or animus possidendi – Plea rejected [Paras 3, 11–12].

Benami Plea – Bar under Benami Transactions Act – Defendant contended plaintiff was only a name lender and transaction was benami – Held: In absence of specific pleadings and proof, and in view of bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, plea not sustainable – Burden heavily lies on person alleging benami nature – Not discharged in present case [Para 12].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Adduce Evidence – Defendant neither examined witnesses nor produced documentary evidence to substantiate claim of exclusive payment of sale consideration or adverse possession – Revenue records (Ex.A2 & Ex.A3) reflected joint possession – Non-reply to legal notice demanding partition leads to adverse inference – Concurrent findings of fact by courts below justified [Paras 4, 12].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Questions of Law – Questions framed relating to payment of consideration and adverse possession answered against appellant – No perversity or misapplication of law shown in concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts – No ground for interference in second appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – No costs – Decree and judgment dated 23.08.2016 in A.S. No. 9 of 2013 confirming decree dated 12.08.2013 in O.S. No. 140 of 2010 upheld – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Loan Recovery Dispute – Public Servant Acting in Official Capacity – FIR and charge-sheet alleged house trespass, criminal force, insult to modesty and intimidation against senior official of West Bengal Financial Corporation during visit for loan recovery – Materials revealed visit was pursuant to official duty for recovery of substantial public dues – Complaint lodged to stall recovery proceedings – Held: Continuation of prosecution would amount to gross abuse of process of law [Paras 16–21].

Section 354 IPC – Outraging Modesty – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Prima Facie Case – To attract Section 354 IPC, criminal force must be applied with intent to outrage modesty – Allegations did not disclose conduct capable of shocking sense of decency of a woman – No material to infer requisite mens rea – Held: Offence under Section 354 IPC not made out [Paras 14, 16].

Delay in Investigation – Inordinate and Unexplained – Effect on Prosecution – Charge-sheet filed nearly four years after FIR – Case diary silent on investigation progress for long periods – Investigating Officer failed to wait for or consider official reply and did not seek further investigation – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without considering unexplained delay – Held: Procedural lapses vitiate prosecution [Paras 12–13, 17].

Section 161 & 164 CrPC – Defective Investigation – Non-recording of Crucial Statements – Statements of witnesses recorded twice without explanation – Statement of de facto complainant under Section 164 CrPC not recorded despite long delay – Investigating Officer ignored material documents and official correspondence – Held: Investigation conducted in perfunctory and mechanical manner [Paras 4, 7, 12, 17].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Preventing Harassment and Vexatious Prosecution – High Court empowered to look beyond allegations and examine attending circumstances – Where prosecution is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive, proceedings deserve to be quashed – Held: Case squarely falls within parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and L. Muniswamy [Paras 13, 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Charge-sheet and criminal proceedings pending before the 5th Judicial Magistrate, Howrah quashed – No order as to costs.

Public Procurement – GeM Tender – One Bid Per Bidder Clause – Common Independent Director – Petitioner disqualified as one Independent Director was common in petitioner-company and another bidder – Held: Term “Director” in Clause 29 does not include “Independent Director” – Independent Director occupies distinct statutory position under Companies Act, 2013 – Disqualification unsustainable [Paras 23–27].

Companies Act, 2013 – Independent Director – Distinct Statutory Framework – Sections 2(47), 149(6), 149(12) provide special qualifications, independence criteria and limited liability – Independent Director neither involved in day-to-day management nor holds pecuniary interest – Cannot be equated with Managing/Whole-time/Executive Director [Paras 13–17, 21].

Vicarious Liability – Role-Based Responsibility – Supreme Court precedents (SMS Pharmaceuticals; National Small Industries; Sunita Palita; K.S. Mehta) reiterate that liability depends on role in conduct of business, not designation alone – Independent/Non-executive Directors not liable absent specific involvement – Reinforces distinction for interpreting procurement clauses [Paras 18–20].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Harmonious Construction – Clause 29 of GeM GTC to be read with Clause 24 (Allied Firms) – Object is to prevent multiple bids by entities under common control/management – Independent Director without shareholding or managerial control does not constitute “common management” or “majority interest” [Paras 24–26].

Procurement Law – Object of “One Bid per Bidder” – Intended to prevent cartelisation or multiple bids by related concerns under effective control – Mere presence of common Independent Director without controlling interest does not attract disqualification [Paras 23, 26].

Clarification by Department of Expenditure – Term “Independent Director” not mentioned in definition of Allied Firms – No authoritative inclusion of Independent Director within scope of “Director” for such purpose – Court proceeds on statutory scheme of Companies Act [Paras 10–11].

GeM Portal – Role as Intermediary – Respondent No.2 (GeM) acts as neutral digital platform – Procuring entity solely responsible for bid evaluation and disqualification – No substantive role in impugned action [Paras 9.2–9.4].

Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Where disqualification based on erroneous interpretation of tender clause contrary to statutory framework, writ court justified in interference [Paras 27–28].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned technical disqualification communications dated 12.12.2025 quashed and set aside – Respondent No.1 directed to consider petitioner’s bids along with other bidders in accordance with tender conditions – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 69 – Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage – Accused married man allegedly concealed marital status and induced victim through social media – Repeated sexual relations resulting in pregnancy – Allegation of deceit from inception – Held: Prima facie ingredients of Section 69 BNS disclosed – Whether victim knew about marital status is matter of trial – Proceedings cannot be quashed at threshold [Paras 11, 13, 17].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Promise to Marry – Distinction between false promise made without intention to fulfil and breach of promise made in good faith – Court reiterates principle laid down in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar – Allegation that accused, being already married, knew promise to marry could not be fulfilled – Prima facie case of deceitful means made out – Issue of voluntariness of consent to be examined during trial [Paras 13, 17].

Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Inherent Jurisdiction – Quashing of Charge-sheet – Power to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases – At stage of quashing, Court only to see prima facie material and not conduct mini trial – Where FIR, statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and medical record disclose commission of cognizable offences – Interference not warranted – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal and other precedents [Paras 10, 18].

Criminal Intimidation and Hurt – Co-accused – Allegations of threats, pressure for compromise and intimidation by wife, sister and brother-in-law of main accused – Specific allegations present in FIR and statements – Matter requires evidence – Proceedings against co-accused also not liable to be quashed at this stage [Paras 2, 11.7, 17].

Distinguishing Precedents – Judgments in Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Mahesh Damu Khare and Uday held inapplicable on facts – Present case involves allegation of deceit from inception by married accused and repeated exploitation – Factual matrix materially different [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025, summoning order dated 26.08.2025 and proceedings of Case No. 554 of 2025 (State v. Vipin Kumar and others) upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Service Law – Promotion – Relaxation of Qualification – Seniority in Feeder Cadre – Petitioner and private respondents promoted as Section Officers – Educational qualification of graduation relaxed in favour of respondents by Hon’ble Chief Justice under Rule 6 – Upon regularisation, seniority fixed on basis of inter se seniority in lower cadre and not educational qualification – Held: Relaxation of qualification was lawful and once granted, respondents could not be treated differently – Seniority correctly determined – No right accrued to petitioner to supersede seniors merely on basis of qualification [Paras 7, 12–14].

Service Cadre – Acceptance of Promotion – Estoppel Against Change of Cadre – Petitioner promoted as Reader (equivalent grade to Assistant Registrar-II) and accepted appointment without protest – Later sought redesignation as Assistant Registrar-II and consequential promotions on ground of better promotional avenues – Held: Employee cannot seek change of cadre at his sweet will after accepting promotion – Having derived benefit of post of Reader, petitioner estopped from claiming retrospective placement in different cadre – Administrative authority justified in rejecting request [Paras 10–15].

Retrospective Promotion – Challenge to Promotion of Seniors – Only one vacancy of Assistant Registrar-II available – Same offered to senior-most Section Officer – Petitioner neither challenged promotion at relevant time nor succeeded in earlier representations – Subsequent grievance arose only when respondents secured further promotion – Held: No arbitrariness or illegality in promoting seniors in relaxation of qualification already granted – Petition devoid of merit [Paras 9, 13–14].

Reader Post – Qualification of LLB – Earlier litigation held LLB as minimum qualification for Reader and directed remedial measures – However, appointments not quashed – Petitioner allowed to continue as Reader till superannuation – Held: No consequential right accrued to seek redesignation as Assistant Registrar-II merely because of observations in earlier judgment [Paras 2, 11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No merit in claim for retrospective appointment as Assistant Registrar-II or for consequential promotion and seniority – Order speaking and reportable.