Civil Law – Withdrawal of Suit – Plaintiff’s Right to Abandon – Dominus Litis – Plaintiffs, having settled with Defendant No. 5, sought to abandon the suit against him and delete Plot No. 73 from the suit – Trial Court rejected the application citing pendency of counter-claim by other defendants – Held: Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, plaintiffs have absolute right to unconditionally withdraw suit or part thereof – Court cannot compel plaintiff to continue suit – Rejection of amendment to delete co-defendant and suit plot unsustainable [Paras 14–21, 41].

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Maintainability Against Co-Defendant – Abuse of Process – Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 sought to raise a counter-claim against Defendant No. 5 to recover Rs.1.61 crores under a 2008 agreement – Added declaratory relief against plaintiffs to sustain counter-claim – Held: Under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, counter-claim must be against plaintiff – Mere inclusion of a relief against plaintiff is insufficient if it is a subterfuge to target a co-defendant – Counter-claim primarily against D5 not maintainable [Paras 25–40].

Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment to Written Statement with Counter-Claim – Liberal Standards Do Not Apply Where Claim Is Legally Impermissible – Trial Court erred in allowing amendment when main intent was to set up a legally barred counter-claim against co-defendant – Liberal standard for amendment of written statement cannot justify permitting unlawful claims [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Common order of Trial Court set aside – Amendment of plaint to delete Defendant No. 5 and suit plot allowed – Amendment of written statement and counter-claim by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 rejected – Rule made absolute [Para 42].

Criminal Law – Abortion – Section 312 IPC – Summoning Order Quashed – Petitioner summoned for offence under Section 312 IPC for terminating 14-week pregnancy – Termination conducted in a registered medical facility under supervision within the permissible 20-week limit under the MTP Act – Medical records stated reason as marital discord – Court held that abortion under medical advice in such circumstances does not attract criminal liability – Petitioner had no intention to cause miscarriage unlawfully – Offence under Section 312 IPC not made out [Paras 21–25, 38–41, 61–64]

Constitutional Law – Reproductive Autonomy – Right to Privacy and Bodily Integrity – Article 21 – Reiterated that a woman’s right to reproductive choice is a dimension of her personal liberty under Article 21 – Cited decisions in Suchita Srivastava, K.S. Puttaswamy, and X v. Principal Secretary affirming that the decision to continue or terminate pregnancy lies solely with the woman – Mental well-being, especially in cases of marital discord, is a valid legal ground for abortion [Paras 30–36, 49–50]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act – Interpretation of “Mental Health” and “Marital Discord” – Rule 3-B and Section 3(3) – Court held that “mental health” includes stress arising from marital discord – Emphasised that the MTP Act and Rules must be interpreted purposively to support access to safe and legal abortion – Rule 3-B applies to changes in material circumstances including emotional distress due to deteriorating marital relationships, even in the absence of formal separation [Paras 42–48, 53–58]

Abuse of Process – Summoning Without Prima Facie Case – Revisional Court failed to appreciate that medical termination of pregnancy under lawful circumstances cannot be treated as an offence – No prima facie evidence of criminal intent or unlawful action by the Petitioner – Summoning order under Section 312 IPC liable to be set aside as abuse of process and contrary to established constitutional and statutory protections [Paras 15–20, 65–67]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order summoning the Petitioner under Section 312 IPC is set aside – Petitioner discharged from all criminal proceedings

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegation Not Substantiated – Appellant-husband sought dissolution of marriage under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 alleging mental and physical cruelty – Evidence adduced by appellant found to be inconsistent, contradictory, and lacking corroboration – No documentary proof produced to support allegations of cruelty – Trial court rightly found allegations to be general and unsubstantiated – Decree of divorce rightly denied [Paras 26, 45–52, 53]

Appellate Review – Standard of Perversity – Findings of Family Court Held Not Perverse – High Court held that judgment of the Family Court was based on appreciation of pleadings and evidence – No material ignored nor any irrelevant material considered – Judgment did not suffer from perversity or arbitrariness as defined by the Supreme Court in Arulvelu v. State – Appeal dismissed [Paras 28–30, 55–57]

Cruelty – Definition and Scope – Legal Test for Matrimonial Cruelty – Reiterated that cruelty must be grave, weighty and more than ordinary wear and tear of married life – Allegations must be specific and substantiated – Mere temperamental incompatibility or trivial disputes do not amount to cruelty – Principles from Dastane v. Dastane, Shobha Rani, Bhagat v. Bhagat and Joydeep Majumdar discussed and applied [Paras 33–42]

Evidence – Contradictory Statements – Husband’s Chief and Cross-Examination Contradicted – Appellant’s own testimony inconsistent regarding period of alleged cruelty and cohabitation – Testimony of witnesses (including mother and neighbours) found contradictory and tutored – Documentary evidence (photographs, police complaints) filed by respondent-wife supported her case [Paras 44–54]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree passed by Family Court upheld – No perversity or legal error found – No interference warranted [Paras 58–59]

Foreigners Law – Expulsion vs. Deportation – Right to Challenge – Petitioner’s wife declared foreigner by Foreigners Tribunal in 2017 – Failed to avail opportunity granted by High Court in 2021 to appear and contest – Tribunal’s ex parte opinion revived – Court held that declared foreign nationals have no right to reside in India – Expulsion upheld [Paras 3–4, 34–36]

Constitutional Rights – Applicability to Foreigners – Article 21 – Petitioner contended wife’s fundamental rights violated by alleged illegal pushback – Court held: Only right to life and liberty under Article 21 applies to foreigners, and expulsion does not amount to arrest – No violation of Article 22 or CrPC provisions [Paras 15, 22, 30, 33]

Procedural Safeguards – Failure to Avail Opportunity – Petitioner’s wife failed to appear before Tribunal despite extension granted by High Court – Verified copy of order was ready on 29.09.2021 – No explanation given – Presumption under Section 119(g) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam applied against her [Para 34]

National Security – Influx from Bangladesh – Court referred to Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India to emphasize ongoing external aggression due to illegal migration – Held: State has absolute authority to expel declared foreigners, including by direct return to Bangladesh, irrespective of diplomatic acceptance [Paras 12–14, 18, 20, 26]

Jurisdiction – Foreigners Tribunals – Declaration has civil consequences – No need to produce declared foreigner before magistrate as per CrPC – No violation of due process found – Tribunal procedures held distinct and valid under Foreigners Act [Paras 32–33]

Relief Sought – Rejected – Petitioner sought production of nationality verification and handover documents – Court held such evidence not required to justify lawful expulsion – No cause for initiating inquiry against officials found [Paras 9, 35–36]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No costs – Registry to place order in W.P.(C) No. 3170/2025 for record.

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act – Rebuttal by Accused – Standard of Proof – Accused admitted signature on cheque but set up defence that cheque was part of multiple cheques issued for chit transaction to a third party – Defence supported by reply notices and contemporaneous documents – Held: Accused need only raise a probable defence and not prove it beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption successfully rebutted on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 12, 15–19].

Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Onus on Complainant – Complainant claimed cash loan of ₹5,00,000/- without documentary proof – Failure to disclose source of funds in statutory notice – Contradictory deposition regarding who sought the loan – Held: Once financial capacity is disputed, burden shifts back to complainant – Failure to prove capacity weakens prosecution case [Paras 7, 12, 19].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Transaction allegedly routed through intermediary (R. Venkateshappa) – Complainant admitted no difficulty in examining said person – Same counsel represented complainant and intermediary in connected proceedings – Held: Non-examination of crucial intermediary, despite defence specifically alleging misuse of cheque, is a material omission attracting adverse inference and probabilising defence [Paras 18–19].

Appreciation of Evidence – Perverse Findings – Courts below proceeded solely on admission of signature on cheque – Ignored contradictions in complainant’s testimony, reply notices and defence evidence – Held: Failure to consider entire material on record renders findings perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2016 and 17.04.2021 set aside – Petitioner/accused acquitted of offence under Section 138 NI Act – Bail and surety bonds discharged.

Criminal Law – Human Trafficking – Cybercrime – Job fraud involving trafficking of Indian citizens to Myanmar where they were held as cyber slaves – Applicants allegedly acted as intermediaries facilitating communication between job seekers and foreign agents in return for commission – Held: Applicants were minor players, unaware of the full consequences – Bail granted post chargesheet [Paras 6(i)–6(vi), 7]

Bail – Successive Bail Application – Post-Chargesheet – Section 483 BNSS – Factors considered – Applicants allegedly acted in good faith without knowledge of the trafficking consequences – Received limited commission – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: Continued detention post-chargesheet would amount to pre-trial punishment – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 6(vii), 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – Sanjay Chandra v. CBI applied – Bail not to be denied as punitive measure where trial is likely to take time and accused’s role is limited – Observations in bail order not to influence trial on merits [Paras 6(vii), 11]

Decision: Applications allowed – Applicants to be released on bail on furnishing bond of ₹50,000/- each with one surety of like amount – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with investigation and trial – Rule made absolute [Paras 8–12]

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Plaintiff sought partition of properties belonging to deceased parents but failed to implead all legal heirs including five sisters – Held: Suit not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties in a claim based on intestate succession – All co-heirs must be before court in a partition suit [Paras 24-29]

Court Fees – Valuation of Suit – Plaintiff undervalued properties in amended plaint by reducing earlier declared valuation – Held: Suit improperly valued – Appropriate court fee not paid – Issue decided against plaintiff [Paras 31-36]

Succession – Will – Validity and Genuineness – Will dated 12.10.2001 executed by Smt. Krishna Wanti in favour of husband – One attesting witness (son) examined – No suspicious circumstances proved – Held: Will validly executed under Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Bequest to spouse not unnatural [Paras 37-57]

Probate – Will of Sh. Hans Raj Gulati – Objections rejected – Will dated 30.05.2003 registered and witnessed – Attesting witness and Sub-Registrar examined – Delay of 7 years in filing probate not fatal as right accrued in 2009 upon amendment of plaint – No proof of mental incapacity or alternative Will – Held: Will valid and genuine – Probate granted [Paras 58-111]

Limitation – Probate Petition – Right to apply accrues when necessity arises – Filing within 3 years of amendment to plaint found within limitation under Article 137 – Continuous right to apply upheld [Paras 80-85]

Evidence – Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of daughters in Will not suspicious – No evidence of coercion or fraud – Objectors failed to prove existence or contents of alleged torn Will – Hearsay inadmissible – No proof of alternate testament [Paras 86-103]

Relief – Partition Suit dismissed – Plaintiff found to have no share in properties – Probate petition allowed – Petitioners granted letters of administration upon compliance [Paras 112-117]

Decision: CS(OS) 2159/2002 dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and undervaluation – Plaintiff held to have no share in suit properties – TEST.CAS. 90/2014 allowed – Will dated 30.05.2003 of Hans Raj Gulati upheld – Petitioners entitled to probate and letters of administration subject to formalities – No order as to costs.

Civil Writ - Fair Price Shop – Misappropriation of Food Grains – Scope of Revision under Clause 24 – Respondent No.5 was found guilty by District Supply Officer (DSO) of misappropriating wheat (22.6 quintals), rice (11.36 quintals), and pulses, and violating other regulatory requirements – DSO passed order cancelling authorization and forfeiting security deposit – Revision before Deputy Commissioner dismissed, confirming findings of irregularity – Second revision allowed by Hon’ble Minister without recording finding on legality or propriety – Held: Minister exceeded revisional jurisdiction under Clause 24(1) by setting aside findings without examining their correctness – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 3–5, 13–16]

Consumer Rights – Locus of Complainants – Preliminary objection raised that original complainants (ration cardholders) have no locus to challenge Minister’s order – Rejected – Held: Under Distribution Order, 1975, complainants have standing to challenge revisional orders unlike under Licensing Order, 1979 – Judgment in Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre followed – Supreme Court ruling in Vishvas not applicable as it related to Licensing Order [Paras 6–10]

Revisional Powers – Jurisdictional Error – Hon’ble Minister ordered fresh enquiry and reinstatement of authorization based on general statements from cardholders and respondent’s long-standing service – Held: Revisional authority must record findings on legality, propriety, or irregularity of prior orders – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable and beyond jurisdiction [Paras 14–16]

Subsequent Events – Fresh Enquiry – Respondent No.5 relied on post-order enquiry showing no current complaints – Held: Subsequent developments irrelevant where earlier findings of misappropriation were unaddressed by revisional authority – Fresh material not part of record and cannot justify flawed revisional order [Para 12]

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Order dated 19/07/2021 passed by Hon’ble Minister quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to Hon’ble Minister to decide revision afresh after recording findings on allegations of misappropriation – Respondent No.5 to continue operating fair price shop unless otherwise barred – Revision to be decided preferably before 31/05/2026 [Para 17]

Banking Law – Interest Equalisation Scheme – Scope and Applicability – Plaintiff, an MSME manufacturer-exporter, was granted 5% interest subvention in September 2021 under the IE Scheme valid at the time – Defendant Bank unilaterally debited Rs. 3.45 crores from plaintiff’s account in June 2022 relying on RBI Circular of 8 March 2022 reducing subvention to 3% – Held: Clause 2(e) of the IE Scheme mandated full and upfront passing of subvention benefit based on date of disbursement – Subsequent circulars could not be applied retrospectively – Bank’s recovery illegal [Paras 1, 7-10, 28, 35, 39, 46, 59-61]

Administrative Law – Interpretation of Circulars – RBI and DGFT Clarifications – DGFT clarification dated 8 July 2022 stating benefit of 5% could only be passed on up to 30 September 2021 was inconsistent with the language of IE Scheme – Held: Plaintiff’s entitlement crystallised on date of disbursement – Later clarifications and circulars could not override vested rights [Paras 36-46, 58-59]

Banking Practice – Reimbursement Claim Negligence – Defendant Bank failed to timely and fully claim reimbursement of 5% subvention from RBI – No evidence that RBI rejected any claim – Held: Plaintiff cannot be penalised for bank’s omission – Recovery from plaintiff unsustainable [Paras 20, 51-56]

Contract Law – Exporter Undertakings – Plaintiff had agreed to refund interest equalisation benefit in case of rejection of claim by RBI – Held: Since no such rejection occurred, clause could not be invoked – Defendant’s reliance on undertaking misplaced [Paras 55-56]

Decision: Suit decreed – Defendant directed to refund Rs. 3,45,37,097/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from 22 June 2022 till actual realisation – Plaintiff also awarded costs [Paras 60-61]