Criminal Contempt – Section 2(c) – Scandalising the Court – YouTube Videos – Banners Targeting Judicial Officers – Respondent No. 2 operated a YouTube channel "Fight 4 Judicial Reforms" and uploaded videos with banners naming specific judicial officers, imputing that litigants before them should abandon hope of justice, and using abusive and derogatory language against the Supreme Court and the entire judicial system – Held: While campaign for audio-video recording of court proceedings and generalised criticism of the judicial system would not amount to contempt, personally attacking named judicial officers and imputing absence of justice in their courts – without verifying facts from the judicial record – went beyond fair criticism and was intended to scandalize and lower the authority of the courts; the act constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The plea of bona fides and public interest rejected as the intent was mala fide and the content was res ipsa loquitur [Paras 48–52].

Fair Criticism vs. Criminal Contempt – Right Under Article 19(1)(a) – Distinction – Fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts, made in good faith in public interest without imputing improper motives, is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and does not amount to contempt – Criminal contempt is committed when the publication is calculated to lower the authority of the court or to create apprehension in the public mind about the integrity and fairness of the Judge or to deter litigants from relying on the court's administration of justice – Proof of actual interference is not necessary; it is sufficient if the publication is likely or tends in any way to interfere with the proper administration of law – Contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with economy, great care and restraint, and only where silence is no longer an option [Paras 39–47].

Respondent No. 1 in Both Cases – Unconditional Apology – Discharge – Respondent No. 1 in Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 3/2025 (Mr. Shiv Narayan Sharma) and Respondent No. 1 in Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 4/2025 (Mr. Deepak Singh) tendered unconditional and unqualified apologies, appeared in person, and undertook not to repeat such conduct – Court found the apologies genuine and accepted the same – Both respondents No. 1 discharged from their respective contempt cases [Paras 4, 11, 56].

Decision: Respondent No. 2 (Mr. Gulshan Pahuja) found guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Notice issued to him under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025 for submissions on punishment under Section 12 of the Act within two weeks – Respondent No. 2 directed to remain personally present on 12.05.2026 – Respondents No. 1 in both cases discharged – Copy of judgment to be translated into Hindi and supplied to Respondent No. 2.

Child Custody – Interim Custody – Best Interests of Child – Minor child (Aaron Gilgit, aged 6 years, citizen of Portugal) in Kerala with paternal grandparents since July 2025 after mother's death in domestic accident — Child not enrolled in school since arrival in Kerala — Child fluent only in English; paternal grandparents unable to speak English — Father (first respondent) residing in United Kingdom and absent from Kerala for over three months — High Court interacted with child in chambers; child expressed willingness to go with maternal aunt — Held: Continued stay of child in Kerala not in his best interests given educational deprivation, linguistic isolation, age of paternal grandparents and father's residence in United Kingdom — Interim custody granted to second petitioner/maternal aunt [Paras 3–8].

"Child's Welfare is Paramount — Court's Interaction in Chambers" – High Court directly interacted with the minor child, parties and counsel in Chambers on 06.04.2026 and 07.04.2026 — Observed child's limited Malayalam and fluency in English — Child had been attending Rushey Mead Primary School, Leicester, United Kingdom until July 2025; not sent to school after reaching Kerala — Paternal grandparents admitted non-enrolment and inability to communicate with child in English — Father confirmed residing in United Kingdom — Held: Physical, emotional, psychological well-being and educational prospects of child best served by returning him to United Kingdom [Para 4].

"Non-Compliance with Court Directions — Passport and OCI Card" – Court directed first respondent to dispatch original passport and OCI card of minor child by courier on or before 15.04.2026 — Respondent sent documents on 11.04.2026 but documents held up at Delhi International Mail Centre — Court extended time till 25.04.2026 for documents to reach destination — First respondent directed to furnish settlement status of child to second petitioner to facilitate travel abroad [Paras 5–7].

"Structured Interim Custody Arrangement — Weekly Schedule" – First respondent/father agreed to permit second petitioner to take child to United Kingdom — Father granted interim custody every Friday 4:00 p.m. to Monday 4:00 p.m. — Second petitioner to take custody from school premises on Monday — Changes in custody to be on mutually agreed terms — School vacation custody to be shared equally or as mutually agreed — Both families directed to maintain cordial relations and refrain from actions causing distress to child — Neither party to take child outside United Kingdom without mutual consent [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Original petition disposed of — Interim custody of minor child granted to second petitioner/maternal aunt — First respondent granted weekly visitation/interim custody from Friday 4:00 p.m. to Monday 4:00 p.m. — Directions issued for handover of passport and OCI card and for travel formalities to be completed.

Matrimonial Law – Maintenance Pendente Lite – Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Qualified Wife – Denial of Maintenance – Appellant-wife (M.D. Gynaecologist) filed application for maintenance under Section 24 during pendency of divorce petition filed by respondent-husband (Neurosurgeon) – Trial court dismissed her application under Section 24 on finding that her ITRs reflected income exceeding Rs. 31 lakhs per annum – Application under Section 26 for children's maintenance allowed; respondent paying Rs. 60,000/- per month – Appellant contended she was removed from employment after filing of the case – Held: Contention rejected – Where a qualified person is capable of earning sufficiently through her expertise and refrains from doing so merely to impose a burden upon the husband, courts can deny maintenance under Section 24 – Impugned order cannot be faulted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Maintenance – Capability to Earn – Distinction from Precedent – Reliance placed by appellant on Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, 2008 AIR SC 530 – Held: Facts therein distinguishable – In that case wife was unemployed and husband had sufficient means; Supreme Court dismissed husband's appeal – In present case, appellant is a trained specialist capable of earning handsomely; precedent not applicable [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 07.04.2025 rejecting appellant's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 upheld.

Medical Reimbursement – Government Employee – Emergency Treatment – Private/Unapproved Hospital – Entitlement to Full Reimbursement – Husband of respondent, a government employee, sustained severe head injury in a motor accident on 08.06.2009 and was referred from a Government Trauma Center without treatment; he was admitted in emergency to private hospitals at Gurugram where total expenditure of Rs. 6,00,031/- was incurred – Appellants withheld substantial amounts on the ground that treatment was taken from unapproved hospitals – Held: In an emergency situation, a patient or attendant cannot be expected to hunt for approved hospitals from a list; refusal of reimbursement on such technical grounds is unreasonable, unjust, and arbitrary – Right to life under Article 21 casts an obligation on the State not to defeat its employees' medical entitlements through technicalities [Paras 9, 11–14].

Medical Reimbursement – Approved Hospital – Wrongful Curtailment – Respondent's husband also received treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, a Government-approved hospital; appellant sanctioned only Rs. 48,979/- against a bill of Rs. 1,40,975/- – Held: Respondent is entitled to full reimbursement of the remaining amount of Rs. 91,996/- as the hospital is on the approved list and no denial was entered in the written statement [Para 9].

Interest on Delayed Medical Reimbursement – Om Prakash Gargi Distinguished – Appellants relied on Om Prakash Gargi v. State of Punjab, 1996 INSC 1155, to contend that interest cannot be awarded on delayed medical reimbursement – Held: Said judgment is distinguishable on facts, as in that case the amounts had not been verified, whereas in the present case the claim was duly verified on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and the department failed to grant the entitlement for over a year by moving the file from office to office – Interest rightly awarded on delayed payment [Paras 11–13].

Medical Reimbursement – Reasonable Time – Judicial Direction – Interest at 9% per annum – In the larger public interest, it is necessary to fix a maximum time period for deciding medical reimbursement claims – Held: State of Punjab, State of Haryana, U.T. Chandigarh, Corporations and Boards are directed to decide medical reimbursement claims within a maximum period of two months from the date of submission of medical bills; beyond that period, interest at 9% per annum shall be payable – Copy of order directed to be sent to all concerned for compliance [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Regular second appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments and decrees of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rewari dated 22.01.2013 and the Additional District Judge, Rewari dated 18.12.2013 upheld – State of Punjab, State of Haryana, U.T. Chandigarh, Corporations and Boards directed to decide medical reimbursement claims within two months; interest at 9% per annum payable on delayed claims.

Service Law – Termination – Simultaneous Acquisition of Qualifications – Absence of Statutory Prohibition – Teacher appointed in 1997 as untrained Assistant Teacher, completed in-service training in 1999, and granted regular pay scale in 2000 – Served continuously for 29 years without adverse record – Services terminated vide order dated 11.12.2025 on the ground that petitioner had simultaneously obtained Certificate in Physical Education and passed Intermediate Examination during academic session 1993-94, and had concealed this fact at the time of appointment – Held: In the absence of any statutory provision, rule, or regulation prohibiting simultaneous pursuit of two courses, this ground cannot constitute a valid basis for disqualification or termination – Impugned order quashed – Writ petition allowed [Paras 43-52].

Natural Justice – Termination Without Departmental Inquiry – Procedural Infirmity – No regular departmental inquiry conducted as mandated under the U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 read with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Termination effected merely on the basis of notices, without formulation of charges, without adducing evidence, and without affording meaningful opportunity of hearing – Held: Such course of action is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice [Para 48].

Long Continuance in Service – Absence of Fraud – Equitable Bar Against Annulment – Petitioner rendered nearly three decades of continuous and unblemished service – Impugned order bereft of any categorical finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or submission of forged documents – Earlier inquiry reports dated 03.03.2021 and 27.07.2024 both recorded that complaints were unsubstantiated – Educational qualifications, including High School Certificate (1991), Certificate in Physical Education (1993-94), and Intermediate Certificate (1995), never cancelled or invalidated by any competent authority – Held: Drastic consequence of termination in such circumstances wholly disproportionate and legally unsustainable [Paras 45-49].

Defiance of Court Order – Salary Withheld Despite Interim Direction – This Court in Writ-A No. 15556 of 2025 had directed completion of inquiry within two months and payment of current salary – Despite the said order, salary not paid and services terminated by order dated 11.12.2025 – Court noted this conduct while quashing the impugned order [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Budhh Nagar, quashed.

Sale Deed – Cancellation – Coercion – Limitation – Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Appellant's suit seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 25.10.1996 and permanent injunction dismissed by trial court – On appeal, High Court examines whether sale deed was executed under coercion and whether suit was barred by limitation – Held: No credible evidence of coercion established; suit filed on 12.10.2009 grossly time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation period of 3 years having commenced from 26.10.1996 when facts first became known to plaintiff – Appeal dismissed at admission stage with costs [Paras 32–50].

"Registered Sale Deed Carries Presumption of Valid Execution" – Sections 58 and 60, Registration Act, 1908 – Appellants failed to rebut statutory presumption of valid execution and registration – Sale deed executed at Tehsil Etah, a crowded public place, before scribe and witnesses; sub-registrar made independent enquiry from vendor before registration – Attesting witness DW-2 proved due execution – No FIR registered despite allegations of abduction and gunpoint coercion; no eyewitness examined – Held: Plaintiff failed to rebut presumption of validity; mere oral assertions insufficient to impeach registered document [Paras 38–43].

"Valuation and Stamp Duty — Allegation of Undervaluation Unsustained" – Section 47-A, Indian Stamp Act – Appellants contended that property was worth ₹20 lakhs but sale deed valued it at ₹2.05 lakhs – ADM (Administration), Etah, vide order dated 17.05.2002, upheld valuation as per prevailing circle rate (land @ ₹700/sq.m.; construction @ ₹2,000/sq.m.) and found stamp duty properly paid – Held: Allegation of undervaluation and insufficient stamping not proved [Para 43].

"Oral Evidence Inadmissible to Contradict Terms of Written Instrument" – Section 92, Indian Evidence Act – Sale deed specifically recorded that possession of disputed property was handed to defendants at time of execution – Appellants' oral assertion of continued possession contradicts express recital of registered instrument – Held: Such contradiction is barred by Section 92; oral evidence cannot be led to contradict terms of a dispositive document [Para 46].

"Limitation for Cancellation of Instrument Runs from Date of First Knowledge" – Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963 – Plaintiff's wife moved application before sub-registrar on 26.10.1996 itself; thereafter made complaints to SP, Chief Minister, and SDM – SDM advised filing suit for cancellation in 2007 but suit filed only on 12.10.2009, approximately 13 years after accrual of knowledge – Held: Limitation commenced on 26.10.1996 when facts of alleged execution first became known; suit filed belatedly is grossly barred by time [Paras 47–48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC with costs throughout – Impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.2025 affirmed.

Murder and Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Affirmed – Sections 302/394/34 IPC – Both appellants convicted by the Trial Court for murder and robbery of the deceased Dooja Devi on 09.05.1997 – Prosecution relied on a chain of circumstances comprising last seen together, recovery of stolen articles and blood-stained clothes at the instance of accused, and medical evidence – Held: When all the circumstances are taken cumulatively, they form a complete and unbroken chain leading only to the guilt of the appellants – Prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 31, 47].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Governing – For conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, each link must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain collectively must exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – Each witness's testimony must be meticulously analysed and reasonable inferences explicitly delineated – Finding of guilt must be reached after proper evaluation of all circumstances to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis [Para 32].

Last Seen Together – Evidentiary Value – Appellants were seen by PW-2 at about 12 noon at the rear door of the house in the company of the deceased and by PW-7 leaving the vicinity shortly thereafter with a grey briefcase – Time gap between last seen and discovery of body was so narrow as to exclude the possibility of intervention by a third person – Appellants admitted presence at the spot in statement under Section 313 CrPC – Absence of any suggestion of prior enmity or false implication renders testimony of PW-2 and PW-7 reliable and creditworthy – Conviction cannot be sustained on last seen evidence alone; prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances [Paras 34, 35, 36].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act – Recovery of stolen jewellery, suitcase, wristwatch, and camera from both appellants within 4-5 days of the incident at their respective instances – Articles duly identified by PW-1 in Test Identification Parade and in court – Possession of stolen articles of the deceased soon after murder raises a presumption of guilt under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act; such presumption weakens if considerable time has elapsed – Appellants failed to offer any explanation for such possession [Paras 38, 41, 45].

Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Section 27 Evidence Act – Section 106 Evidence Act – Blood-stained clothes of both accused recovered from the house of appellant Surya Narain pursuant to disclosure statement of appellant Anil Kumar – FSL report confirmed presence of human blood – Though blood grouping could not be determined due to degradation over time, such inability does not diminish evidentiary value – Failure to explain the presence of blood on clothes is a fact especially within the knowledge of the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance [Paras 38, 39].

Investigation – Lapses – Effect – Non-examination of the unknown caller, son of the deceased, and SI Atul Kumar Mishra does not create a dent in the prosecution case as nothing turns on their testimonies – Defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal when substantive evidence otherwise proves the guilt of the accused – No independent public witness at recovery does not render police witnesses unreliable; there is a presumption that public officials would depose truthfully [Paras 41, 43].

Silence under Section 313 CrPC – In the face of strong incriminating circumstances, failure of the accused to offer any explanation consistent with their innocence in their statement under Section 313 CrPC further reinforces the prosecution case and constitutes a significant circumstance against them [Para 43].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of both appellants under Sections 302/394/34 IPC affirmed – Appellants directed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent within one week.

Customs Law – Export Incentives – RoDTEP Scheme – Sugar Exports – Denial of Benefit – Petitioners engaged in export of white refined sugar (ITC(HS) Code 17011490) availed duty credit under RoDTEP Scheme – Export policy of sugar amended from "free" to "restricted" by Notification No. 10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022, with exports permitted under specific permission of Directorate of Sugar – Revenue denied RoDTEP benefit treating such exports as ineligible "restricted" exports under Notification No. 76/2021-Customs (N.T.) – Held: Sugar exported with specific permission under prescribed conditions cannot be treated as a totally restricted or prohibited item so as to deprive petitioners of RoDTEP benefits – Petitioners entitled to duty credit under the Scheme [Paras 3-4, 9, 22].

Export Policy – Restricted vs. Prohibited Exports – RoDTEP Ineligibility – Item No. 1 of Table 1 to Notification No. 76/2021 excludes from RoDTEP duty credit goods "restricted or prohibited for export" – Revenue contended that sugar, post-Notification dated 24 May 2022, became blanketly ineligible – Held: The said notification does not impose a total embargo; it permits export with specific permission and prescribed quota – Characterising quota-permitted exports as "restricted/prohibited" is a misreading of the notification – Revenue's position contrary to the policy conditions set out in the notification itself [Paras 19-22].

Precedent – Finality of High Court Decision – Uniform Policy – Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and M/s. Satyendra Packaging Ltd. held that RoDTEP benefit cannot be denied to sugar exporters acting under specific Government permission – Department's SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on 26 April 2024 – Department's own communications accepted finality of the Gujarat High Court orders and proceeded to grant benefit to those petitioners – Held: Once an issue has attained finality in view of an authoritative pronouncement by a High Court, the department ought not to re-agitate the same before other High Courts; doing so invites conflicting interpretations and judicial chaos – Principle of inter-High Court comity and uniform policy on Central legislation affirmed following Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. and Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co. [Paras 23-25].

Relief – Refund with Interest – Petitioners who were not granted RoDTEP benefit directed to be granted the same – Where benefit was already granted but subsequently recovered from petitioners, refund of amount so recovered directed within four weeks along with interest at 6% per annum – No coercive recovery action to be taken where benefit has been granted [Paras 26-27, Order clauses (i)-(iv)].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Petitioners held entitled to RoDTEP benefit – Respondents directed to grant rebate under the Scheme to petitioners who exported sugar under specific permission – Petitioners from whom benefit was recovered directed to be refunded with 6% p.a. interest within four weeks – No coercive action for recovery to be taken – Rule made absolute. No costs.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406/420/120B IPC – Quashing of Complaint – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Opposite party/complainant alleged that petitioners induced supply of electrical goods worth Rs. 11,15,297/- by misrepresentation and thereafter denied the transaction refusing payment – Petitioners sought quashing contending absence of business transaction and non-production of authenticated bills – Held: At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., court is not to embark on an enquiry into reliability of evidence or conduct a mini-trial – Defence materials cannot be looked into unless unimpeachable – If prima facie ingredients of the offence are made out from the complaint and accompanying documents, proceeding cannot be quashed [Paras 26-28, 32].

Cheating – Mens Rea – Intent Since Inception – Shifting Stand of Accused – Petitioners initially took the position that there was never any business transaction with the opposite party, and obtained interim stay on that basis – Upon complainant filing affidavit with invoices, delivery challans, bank statements and ledger extracts reflecting commercial transactions, petitioners shifted stand to disputing authenticity of bills – Held: Such shifting of stand from "no transaction" to "transaction not proved" prima facie discloses dishonest intention since inception – Subsequent conduct of denying transactions, returning bills as concocted and failing to pay despite receiving goods constitutes sufficient material for inference of mens rea – Commercial origin of dispute does not preclude criminal prosecution where deception at inception is alleged [Paras 19, 22, 29, 32].

Section 406 IPC vs. Section 420 IPC – Coexistence – Petitioner argued that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot coexist on the same facts – Held: Question of coexistence of offences is itself a triable issue and cannot be decided at the stage of quashing – Court noted the argument but declined to resolve it at pre-trial stage [Para 7].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Power – Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Petitioners contended the dispute was purely civil – Held: The fact that allegations arise from commercial transactions does not render the criminal complaint non-maintainable – Civil remedy and criminal prosecution may coexist where dishonest intention is alleged – Following Lal Moni Devi vs. State of Bihar, Rajest Bajaj vs. State of NCT Delhi and Shivanarayan Kabra vs. State of Madras – Criminal proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage [Paras 29-34].

Section 340 Cr.P.C. / Section 379 BNSS – Application for Preliminary Enquiry for Prosecution for False Statement on Oath (CRAN 10 of 2025) – Allegation of suppression of material facts and false statements on affidavit by petitioners – Held: Allegations are at a premature stage and it would be too early to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at this juncture – Kept open for future consideration after adjudication of substantive issues, if situation demands [Para 36].

Decision: CRR 2107 of 2018 dismissed – Criminal proceeding before learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta to continue – CRAN 10 of 2025 kept open for future consideration – No opinion expressed on merits of the case.