Service Law – Refixation of Pay – Retrospective Promotion – Re-option for Pay Revisions – Retired Administrative Assistant granted retrospective promotion to Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 01.11.1971 – Re-option request for 1973, 1978 and 1983 pay revisions rejected as delayed – Tribunal found re-option inadmissible due to absence of retrospective revision in pay scale – However, directed State to implement earlier order granting notional re-fixation of pay (Annexure A2) – Held: Tribunal justified in directing implementation of order already sanctioned but not acted upon [Paras 2, 3, 4, 13, 14]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings of Tribunal unless order is perverse, patently unreasonable or violates basic principles of justice – Tribunal’s direction found consistent with settled legal principles and not warranting interference – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–12, 14]

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s direction to implement Annexure A2 upheld – No grounds for interference under Article 227.

Family Law – Property Dispute Between Father and Son – Ownership and Possession – Father filed suit seeking mandatory injunction against son to vacate portion of self-acquired residential house – Son claimed house was joint family property and he was a coparcener – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that property was purchased by father and his brother from their personal income and was not HUF property – Defendant failed to produce any evidence of coparcenary or ownership – Held: Son residing in father’s house as a permissive occupant cannot claim legal right to remain in possession – Father has absolute right to revoke permission and seek possession [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 6, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability – Son argued that suit should have been for possession and not mandatory injunction – Held: When defendant is in permissive possession without legal title and plaintiff remains in joint possession, suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable – No bar in seeking injunction to recover possession from permissive occupier [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Licensee vs. Permissive Possession – Meaning and Scope – Use of term "licensee" in plaint not fatal – Courts held son was not a licensee in strict legal sense but a permissive occupant – Gratuitous permission by parent creates no vested right – Suit maintainable even in absence of formal licensor-licensee relationship – Distinguished permissive possession from contractual license [Paras 8–12].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by both courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right or raise a question of law – Held: No ground for interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal devoid of merit [Paras 14, 17, 18].

Exemplary Costs – Abuse of Process – Prolonged litigation by son against father despite lack of legal claim – Court deprecated the conduct and imposed exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on appellant – Observed such litigation erodes family trust and burdens judiciary [Para 24, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower courts affirmed – Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on appellant to be paid to respondent.

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Suit for Injunction Barred by Prior Decree – Appellant-plaintiff, claiming as Karanavan of Kadapurathaillam Tarwad, filed suit for prohibitory injunction alleging unlawful possession by members of a Thavazhi – Trial Court dismissed suit as barred by res judicata based on earlier decisions (OS 47/1969 and OS 6/1975) – Held: Prior suit involved identical properties, parties, and reliefs including possession and injunction – Finding in Full Bench decision in AS 267/1979 upholding bar of res judicata operates against present claim – No new possession claimed after prior decision – Present suit not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Issue – Scope of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Trial Court decided res judicata as preliminary issue – Held: Where facts relevant to res judicata are undisputed, the issue may be determined as preliminary – Court not bound to proceed to full trial merely because mixed question of law and fact is raised – Reliance placed on Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa (AIR 2021 SC 4523) [Paras 10–11, 13].

Customary Law – Marumakkathayam – Reversionary Rights – Plaintiff claimed reversion of thavazhi property (attalodukkam) on extinction of female line – Earlier judgments had already adjudicated on such reversionary claim – Re-litigation barred [Paras 2–6].

Civil Procedure – Fresh Suit on Possession – When Earlier Suit Involved Same Relief – Appellant contended that possession as on date of suit was not adjudicated earlier – Held: Prior suits involved claims for possession and injunction over same properties – No claim of fresh possession after previous decree – No ground to reopen issue – Suit barred [Para 13].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Trial court rightly held suit to be barred by res judicata – Res judicata can be determined as preliminary issue where relevant facts are undisputed – No interference warranted with judgment and decree of the District Court, Lakshadweep dated 05.06.2015 in OS No. 7 of 2012 [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Permission to Travel Abroad – Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 – Parameters for Judicial Discretion – Petitioner, facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 380, and 34 IPC, sought permission to travel abroad for business purposes – Earlier permissions granted in 2023 and 2024 were duly complied with – Trial Court rejected latest application fearing abscondence – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Restriction thereon must satisfy procedure established by law which is just, fair and reasonable – Courts must balance liberty of the accused with the administration of justice, ensuring presence during trial [Paras 7–10, 13].

Flight Risk – Interpretation of “Likely to Abscond” – Predictive Standard – The term “likely” must denote a reasonable or palpable probability, not a speculative possibility – Courts cannot deny liberty based on conjectural fears – Determination of flight risk must rest on tangible and cogent material [Para 11].

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Grant of Permission to Travel Abroad – Courts must consider gravity of allegations, antecedents, bona fides of travel, and safeguards ensuring return – No rigid formula can be laid down – Discretion must be exercised with fairness, equity, and good conscience [Paras 12–13].

Procedural Justice – Hypertechnical Approach Decried – Petitioner’s earlier itinerary had lapsed; remitting matter to trial court would serve no purpose – Procedural rules are handmaidens of justice, not its mistress – High Court permitted travel directly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner permitted to travel abroad as per itinerary (15.10.2025–03.12.2025) subject to conditions imposed by trial court including furnishing of ₹10 lakh bank guarantee – Guarantee liable to forfeiture in case of non-return or violation of conditions [Para 15].

Civil Law – Agreement to Sell – Refund of Earnest Money – Specific Performance Not Pressed – Plaintiff claimed refund of Rs.46.38 lakhs as part of Rs.85.78 lakhs allegedly paid under agreement to sell dated 04.12.2007 – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim as agreement did not mention payment of any earnest money and lacked clarity on sale consideration – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish payment of any specific amount towards earnest money through cogent evidence – No refund could be granted in absence of proof of consideration or admission by seller [Paras 4, 7].

Civil Procedure – Limitation of Challenge – Scope of Appeal – Before First Appellate Court, plaintiff did not press for specific performance and restricted challenge to refund claim only – First Appellate Court rightly limited its findings to Issue No.3 regarding refund – No error found in courts below in rejecting plaintiff’s restricted claim [Paras 4, 7].

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – Both courts below rejected plaintiff’s case on facts and evidence – No substantial question of law arising from concurrent findings – Held: Second appeal not maintainable under Section 100 CPC where no perversity or legal infirmity shown [Paras 8-9].

Decision:   Appeal dismissed – No merit found – No substantial question of law arises.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Companies Act Offences – Bail Granted – Chartered Accountants facing prosecution under Sections 143 r/w 147 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 and related provisions for allegedly auditing falsified financial statements of SRS Group companies and concealing related party transactions – Petitioners had not been arrested during investigation – Trial court had issued summons and later warrants, prompting petitions under Section 438 CrPC – High Court held there was no material to show petitioners received disproportionate payments or undue favors in lieu of favorable audit reports – No evidence of complicity in the loan fraud or siphoning of funds – Bail granted as custodial interrogation not required [Paras 1, 3, 24, 29, 30]

Companies Act – Section 212(6) – Twin Conditions for Bail – Applicability – Court held that in absence of prima facie material indicating conspiracy or intent to commit fraud, statutory rigors of Section 212(6) would not preclude grant of bail – Reverse burden clause under Section 212(6) must be triggered only after primary burden is discharged by the prosecution – Held: Petitioners satisfied both limbs of Section 212(6) – Not guilty of offence and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail [Paras 31-33]

Audit Practice – Professional Negligence vs. Criminal Conspiracy – Distinction Drawn – Allegations primarily relate to failure in following auditing standards and non-reporting of circular transactions and related party dealings – Court observed no direct evidence of quid pro quo, criminal intent, or conspiracy with SRS Group controllers – Case does not exceed beyond dereliction of duty – Held: Auditors’ acts, even if deficient, did not amount to criminal complicity in financial fraud [Paras 24, 28-30]

Bank Lending – Role of Auditors – Scope of Responsibility – Consortium of banks (led by SBI) granted large-scale loans to SRS Group – Court found that banks did not rely upon audited financial statements while sanctioning credit – Held: No causal link between auditors' conduct and grant of loans – Bail granted as no complicity established [Paras 26-27]

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted to all petitioners – Conditions imposed to ensure presence before trial court – Court clarified that mere professional lapses without quid pro quo or mens rea do not satisfy threshold under Section 212(6) Companies Act, 2013.

Banking Law - Debt Recovery – SARFAESI Proceedings – Maintainability of Writ – Appellant, a Small Enterprise under the MSMED Act, challenged action taken by the Bank under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act citing failure to follow RBI’s rehabilitation guidelines – Contended that Bank could not invoke SARFAESI without exploring rehabilitation under 2015 RBI Notification – High Court held that since the grievance arose from action under Section 13(4), remedy under Section 17 before DRT was available – Writ petition rightly dismissed by Single Judge for availability of alternate remedy [Paras 2, 5–8]

Debt Recovery Tribunal – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act – Appellant argued that DRT lacked jurisdiction as the challenge was to the very applicability of SARFAESI – Rejected – Held: Section 17(1) permits any aggrieved person to approach DRT against measures under Section 13(4), including cases where SARFAESI action is alleged to be invalid ab initio – Jurisdiction of DRT not ousted – No fault found with Single Judge’s reasoning [Paras 6–8]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Writ petition rightly not entertained – Appellant directed to avail remedy before DRT [Para 9]

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Vague Allegations and Police Cases – Divorce Denied – Appellants, two brothers, filed separate divorce petitions under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA alleging cruelty by their wives who are sisters – Alleged incidents included quarrels, assaults, poisoning, FIRs and refusal to attend last rites – All FIRs ended in acquittal or compounding – No medical or independent evidence produced – Held: Allegations were vague, general and unsupported – Mere registration of FIRs without conviction or supporting proof cannot constitute cruelty – Appeals dismissed [Paras 6–9, 18–29].

Cruelty – Evidentiary Threshold – Section 13(1)(ia) HMA – Proof Required – Family Court rightly held that allegations of cruelty must be specific and substantiated – No evidence of poisoning or Kalendra proceedings produced – FIR-based allegations unsupported by medical records or independent testimony – Respondents acquitted, and allegations found to be part of domestic discord – Held: Standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, but even that not satisfied in present case [Paras 21–25].

Separation – Long Duration Alone Not Cruelty – No Irretrievable Breakdown Proven – Appellants relied on prolonged separation of over 13 years to seek divorce – Held: Long separation, in absence of intent to reconcile or abusive conduct by respondent, cannot per se constitute cruelty – Appellants themselves unwilling to resume cohabitation – Reliance on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli found misplaced [Paras 27–28].

Burden of Proof – Non-Examination of Key Witness – Adverse Inference – Appellants failed to examine any independent witness or produce credible documentary evidence – Plaintiff Devender Kumar admitted in cross-examination unwillingness to live with respondent – Held: Mere allegations without proof cannot sustain divorce on grounds of cruelty [Paras 21–23, 26].

Decision: Divorce appeals dismissed – Family Court judgment upheld – No credible evidence of cruelty – Long separation without cohabitation not a standalone ground for divorce – Parties left to bear their own costs [Paras 29–30].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Bank Fraud – Discharge – Opposite Party, a former bank manager, was discharged by Special CBI Court in a case involving ₹9.14 crore loan fraud – CBI challenged discharge, alleging conspiracy and irregularities in loan sanction – Held: Loan was sanctioned by General Manager based on multiple internal reports including technical and appraisal reports – Opposite Party’s role limited to forwarding proposal without sanctioning power – No prima facie evidence of conspiracy against Opposite Party – Discharge justified [Paras 2–11]

Criminal Procedure – Section 239 CrPC – Discharge – Judicial Review – High Court reaffirmed that in absence of specific, substantiated material pointing to active role or mens rea, trial court rightly exercised discretion under Section 239 to prevent harassment – Failure of CBI to reinvestigate, despite court direction, further weakens prosecution’s case – Observed that prosecution proceeded selectively without naming equally involved senior officials – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 10–12]

Criminal Investigation – Fair Trial – Selective Prosecution – Court noted systemic gaps in investigation, particularly omission of officials in Core Credit Group and higher management who played significant roles – CBI’s omission to include key sanctioning officers in chargesheet despite specific allegations raised in complaint found arbitrary – Cited State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai, stressing against pick-and-choose prosecution [Para 11]

Decision: Revisional Application Dismissed – Order of discharge dated 28/11/2014 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Kolkata in Special Case No. 16 of 2010 affirmed – Direction for reinvestigation by Special Judge not complied with – No prima facie case made out against Opposite Party – Allegations of negligence do not establish criminal conspiracy.