Plaint – Rejection of Plaint – Under-valuation – Advanced Stage of Trial – Application filed after examination of defence witness (DW.4) – Defendant sought rejection of plaint alleging that suit property was undervalued based on evidence of Sub-Registrar official regarding sale value of nearby properties – Trial Court dismissed the application holding that under-valuation was not substantiated and application was belated – Held: Evidence of DW.4 only indicated approximate value including land and building and did not conclusively establish market value of land alone – Valuation of construction varies depending on quality and age of building – No definite conclusion of under-valuation possible on such evidence – Disputed question of fact involved, requiring detailed enquiry – Rejection of plaint at such stage not warranted – No illegality or irregularity in impugned order [Paras 2–7].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Though application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage before disposal of suit – When plea involves disputed facts relating to valuation and requires evidence, plaint cannot be rejected summarily – Proper course is framing of issue and trial on valuation, if sought – Liberty granted to defendant to seek framing of issue on valuation before Trial Court [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2025 upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply before Trial Court for framing an issue on valuation of plaint – No costs – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Indian Succession Act – Succession Certificate – Christian Intestate – Deceased leaving widow and lineal descendants – Trial Court refused certificate on ground that mother of deceased is also legal heir – Held, erroneous – Under Sections 32 and 33, where intestate is survived by widow and lineal descendants, mother does not inherit – Estate devolves upon widow and children – Refusal of succession certificate unsustainable in law [Paras 6-7].

Indian Succession Act – Distribution of Estate – Section 33 – Intestate leaving widow and lineal descendants – One-third of property to widow and remaining two-thirds to lineal descendants – Mother excluded when direct lineal descendants exist – Trial Court misconstrued statutory scheme – Impugned order liable to be set aside [Paras 6-7].

Succession Certificate – Shares in Company – No nomination – Requirement of certificate by company for transmission – Appellants, being widow and sons of deceased, entitled to seek certificate under Section 372 – Dismissal despite prima facie entitlement improper – Appellate Court directed issuance of certificate within specified time [Paras 3, 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 08.11.2019 in P & S.C. No.532/2018 set aside – Trial Court directed to grant succession certificate in favour of appellants forthwith in accordance with law.

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Employees of State-Controlled Society – Parity with Government Employees – Petitioners employed in MJPAPBCWRIS sought continuation in service till 62 years based on G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 enhancing superannuation age of Government employees – Society contended that Government consent required and relied on Finance Department Circular dated 23.09.2022 – Held: Petitioners entitled to enhanced age of superannuation [Paras 1–3, 19].

Statutory Service Regulations – Rule 14 – Application of Government Rules – Legislation by Reference – Rule 14 of MJPAPBCWRIS Service Regulations, 2018 provides that age of superannuation shall be on par with respective Government employees – Held: Rule amounts to legislation by general reference – Subsequent amendment enhancing superannuation age of Government employees automatically applies to Society employees [Paras 10–12].

Circular vs Statutory Rules – Executive Instructions Cannot Override Statutory Service Regulations – Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022 excluding non-Government employees from benefit of enhanced superannuation age cannot prevail over Service Regulations framed with Government approval – Action of respondents retiring petitioners at 60 years held illegal and unsustainable [Paras 3, 12, 18].

Consent of State Government – Not Required Where Statutory Parity Exists – Distinction between Corporation Bye-laws and Statutory Service Rules – Reliance on Division Bench decision in G. Rama Mohan Rao case held inapplicable – Where service conditions are statutory and approved by Government, separate consent for enhancement of superannuation age not required [Paras 18–19].

Precedents – Supreme Court on Parity Clauses – Kerala SRTC v. K.O. Varghese and Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer – Applied – As long as parity clause in Service Regulations remains unamended, benefit of enhanced age of superannuation cannot be denied to Society employees [Paras 11–15].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Petitioners entitled to continue in service till attaining age of 62 years on par with Government employees – Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022 set aside insofar as petitioners are concerned – No order as to costs – Pending applications closed.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Condonation of Delay – Review Petition – Delay of 645 days beyond prescribed period of 30 days under Article 124 – Applicants sought condonation citing time spent in identifying specialised counsel, intervening summer vacations, family wedding and attempts at amicable settlement – Held: Reasons vague, general and unsupported by material particulars – No explanation as to when counsel was identified or how vacations and personal events prevented timely filing – Such grounds do not constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 5–8, 13].

Limitation – Settlement Talks – Effect on Limitation Period – Attempts at amicable settlement initiated more than one year after impugned order and well beyond limitation period – Held: Efforts at settlement made after expiry of limitation cannot justify delay in filing review petition – Cause shown must cover entire period of delay [Para 8].

Delay Condonation – Pendency of Proceedings – Irrelevance – Argument that original dispute was pending since 2004 and appeal decided in 2024, hence delay of 645 days is insignificant – Held: Time taken by Court to decide earlier proceedings is irrelevant for condonation of delay after judgment – Delay must be explained with reference to period post-order sought to be reviewed [Para 9].

Review Jurisdiction – Important Question of Law – Effect on Limitation – Contention that review raised substantial questions of law relating to appellate powers and remand – Held: Importance of legal issue is not a substitute for “sufficient cause” – If matter was urgent or involved important questions of law, applicants ought to have acted with greater promptitude – Submission held self-contradictory [Para 10].

Statutory Limitation – Review Petition – Thirty Days’ Period – Challenge to Adequacy – Submission that limitation period of 30 days is too short – Held: Period prescribed by Article 124 is legislative mandate – Legislature has consciously fixed limitation considering time required for consultation – Limitation cannot be diluted merely by invoking Section 5 – Argument rejected [Para 11].

Supreme Court Precedent – Sufficient Cause – Reliance placed on Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 – Held: Liberal approach does not mean accepting unsubstantiated excuses – Courts must distinguish between genuine cause and mere explanations to cover negligence [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Interim Application for condonation of delay dismissed – Review Petition does not survive and disposed of accordingly [Paras 14–15].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Minor Rape Victim – Constitutional Jurisdiction – Applicant aged 14 years and 6 months, victim of rape, sought permission for termination of pregnancy – FIR registered under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS – Medical Board opined pregnancy of about 15 weeks and found termination permissible under MTP Act – Held: In cases of rape of a minor, continuance of pregnancy presumed to cause grave injury to mental health – Termination allowed in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution [Paras 1–6, 11].

MTP Act – Sections 3 and Rule 3B – Pregnancy up to 24 Weeks – Survivors of Sexual Assault and Minors – Rule 3B expressly permits termination up to 24 weeks for minors and survivors of rape – Opinion of Medical Board confirmed safety of procedure – Statutory framework recognizes autonomy, dignity and bodily integrity of pregnant woman – Court relied on Supreme Court exposition in X v. Union of India [Paras 6–9].

Right to Reproductive Choice – Article 21 – Bodily Autonomy and Dignity – Forcing a minor rape victim to continue pregnancy would violate her right to life with dignity – Reproductive choice is inseparable from personal liberty under Article 21 – Best interest of the victim is paramount consideration – Continuation of pregnancy would aggravate trauma, mental agony and social harm [Paras 9–11].

Best Interest Doctrine – Victim-Centric Approach – Court emphasized “best interest” theory while dealing with pregnancy of minor rape survivor – Psychological trauma, social ostracism and long-term impact on minor taken into account – Termination directed without delay to prevent further aggravation of victim’s suffering [Paras 11–13].

Procedure and Safeguards – Medical Board – DNA Preservation – Court directed constitution of team of senior gynaecologists and psychologist for conducting termination – Hospital directed to ensure pre and post-operative care – Directions issued for scientific collection and preservation of fetal tissue for DNA profiling to aid investigation – If child born alive, best medical care and State responsibility ensured under JJ Act [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Medical termination of pregnancy of minor rape victim permitted – Detailed directions issued to Zydus Medical College and Hospital, Dahod – Petition disposed of with safeguards and compliance directions.

Public Trust – Election Dispute – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff filed civil suit seeking declaration and cancellation of unopposed election of defendant as President of a registered public trust – Allegations of illegal rejection of nomination, mala fides, corrupt practices and collusion by election officials – Defendants sought rejection of plaint contending statutory bar under Section 73 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act and pendency of proceedings before Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan – Trial Court rejected application – Held: At stage of Order VII Rule 11, only plaint averments are to be examined – Allegations disclose clear cause of action requiring adjudication on evidence – Rejection of plaint unwarranted [Paras 1–5, 10].

Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 – Sections 21 to 23, 38 & 73 – Scope and Applicability – Proceedings under Sections 21–23 relate to entries and change reports of trustees – Section 38 concerns management and administration of public trust – Act does not provide mechanism for adjudication of election disputes of office bearers – Section 73 bars civil court jurisdiction only in respect of matters required to be decided by statutory authorities – Election disputes alleging fraud and corruption not covered – No express or implied bar to civil court jurisdiction [Paras 7.1–7.3, 10.1–10.3].

Election of Trust Office Bearers – Allegations of Fraud and Corruption – Civil Remedy – Suit based on allegations of corrupt practices, mala fide conduct and connivance between election officer and elected candidate – Such disputes involve civil consequences and cannot be summarily decided – In absence of statutory forum under Act of 1959, civil court retains plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC [Paras 8–10.2].

Exclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction – Principles – Dhulabhai Case Applied – Ouster of civil court jurisdiction not to be readily inferred – Unless statute provides express bar and adequate alternative remedy, civil courts retain jurisdiction – Rajasthan Public Trust Act does not create special tribunal for election disputes – Ratio of Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. applied – Coordinate Bench decision in Nathu Lal Sharma v. Omprakash followed [Paras 10.2–10.4].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 115 CPC – Scope – No jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity found in order of Trial Court rejecting Order VII Rule 11 application – Revisional interference not warranted [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order dated 03.11.2025 rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC affirmed.

Trade Union Recognition – Statutory Mechanism – West Bengal Amendment Act, 1983 – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Petitioner union sought recognition as constituent of joint bargaining council and derecognition of rival union – Held: Recognition of trade unions and disputes regarding legality of registration are exclusively governed by Sections 28A/28B and Section 7 of the Trade Unions Act – Proper authority is Registrar of Trade Unions – Writ petition dismissed for non-availment of statutory remedy [Paras 20–27].

Writ of Mandamus – Absence of Enforceable Legal Right – Recognition of Trade Union Not a Fundamental or Legal Right Enforceable in Writ Jurisdiction – Employer is a private entity not discharging public duty – Relief seeking direction for recognition by private employer impermissible under Article 226 [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Alternate Remedy – Doctrine of Exhaustion – Petitioner failed to approach Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No.5) for recognition or challenge to alleged illegal registration of rival union – Held: When statute provides complete machinery, writ court should not be invoked in the first instance [Paras 21–26].

Trade Unions Act – Section 7 – Identical or Deceptively Similar Names – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Allegation that two unions registered with identical names – Held: Issue squarely falls within powers of Registrar of Trade Unions – High Court declined to adjudicate in writ jurisdiction [Paras 24–25].

Industrial Relations – Inter-union Rivalry – Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction – Disputes relating to membership strength, recognition and bargaining rights between rival unions are matters for statutory authorities and industrial adjudication – Not for determination under Article 226 [Paras 15, 18–19].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty implied to petitioner to approach Registrar of Trade Unions for appropriate relief under the Trade Unions Act and the West Bengal Amendment Act – Interim orders vacated – Connected applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Appellant Sanwarey convicted for murder along with other co-accused – Role attributed to appellant was assault with lathi – Knife blows attributed to co-accused – Held: Once common object to commit murder is established, individual role or nature of weapon used by each accused is immaterial – Vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC squarely attracted [Paras 49–55].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Minor Contradictions – PW-2 (wife of deceased) and PW-3, PW-4 eyewitnesses consistently named accused – Minor discrepancies regarding exact role or manner of assault held natural and inconsequential – Held: Trivial contradictions do not corrode the core of prosecution case – Evidence inspires confidence and has ring of truth [Paras 35–40].

Evidence – Related / Interested Witness – Wife of Deceased – PW-2 being wife of deceased cannot be treated as “interested witness” merely due to relationship – She was natural and most probable eyewitness – No reason to falsely implicate accused while shielding real offenders – Testimony reliable [Paras 37–40].

Criminal Trial – Defective Investigation – Effect – Non-preparation of memo of torch and discrepancies in FSL report regarding bloodstains – Held: Lapses or defects in investigation by themselves do not entitle accused to acquittal – Court required to evaluate evidence dehors such lapses – Prosecution case otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 42–48].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Night Occurrence – Moonlit Night – Witnesses acquainted with accused who were relatives and co-villagers – Identification possible even in low light from features, voice and familiarity – Held: Plea of insufficient light rejected [Paras 57–60].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem revealed multiple lacerated, punctured and blunt-force injuries – Doctor opined majority of injuries caused by blunt weapon like lathi – Medical evidence corroborated ocular testimony assigning lathi role to appellant – Strengthened prosecution case [Paras 50–51].

Criminal Law – Section 149 IPC – Scope – Presence in unlawful assembly with common object sufficient to fasten liability – Actual participation or infliction of fatal injury not mandatory – Constructive liability of every member affirmed [Paras 52–56].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentence under Sections 147/148 IPC affirmed – Appellant Sanwarey directed to surrender to serve sentence – Bail bond cancelled – Trial Court judgment upheld.

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Vendor Agreement – Petitioner contended it was an assembler, not manufacturer, and that respondent was obligated to pay 100% advance – Arbitrator found petitioner responsible for non-delivery of goods and liable to refund part of advance with interest – Held: Findings based on appreciation of contract and evidence – No perversity or patent illegality – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–3, 10–12, 20–21]

Interpretation of Contract – Payment Terms and Procurement Obligations – Vendor Agreement required petitioner to procure components (five from vendors identified by respondent) and deliver finished switches – No contractual clause requiring 100% advance – Petitioner failed to supply full quantity under Purchase Order – Arbitrator’s interpretation that payment was due post-acceptance of goods found plausible – No interference warranted [Paras 7–9, 11–13]

Scope under Section 34 – Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards – Court reiterated narrow scope of interference under Section 34 – Arbitrator’s view must be respected if plausible and not perverse – Court not to sit in appeal or reappreciate evidence – Relied on Prakash Atlanta v. NHAI, Ramesh Kumar Jain v. BALCO, and Parsa Kente Collieries v. RRUVNL [Paras 19.1–19.3]

Contractual Interpretation – Entire Agreement Clause – Clause 14.10 of Vendor Agreement did not nullify existing purchase orders but governed terms of performance – No merit in contention that PO stood extinguished [Para 15]

Arbitral Remedy – Back-to-Back Refund for Vendor-Identified Components – Arbitrator rightly noted that deficiencies in components from respondent’s identified vendors would attract refund only if vendor issued a back-to-back refund – No absolute liability of respondent for advance payment [Para 8.2, 16]

Decision: Petition under Section 34 dismissed – Arbitral award upheld – No perversity, patent illegality, or conflict with public policy found – Pending application also dismissed.