Civil Law – Return of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Dismissal Set Aside – Trial Court dismissed suit despite holding it lacked jurisdiction, which was upheld in first appeal – Held: When a court concludes it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, it must return the plaint without deciding other issues – Dismissal was erroneous and legally impermissible – Suit to be tried de novo by competent court if re-presented [Paras 6–9].

Jurisdiction – Distinction between Trial and Appellate Stage – Uniform Rule Applies – The Court held that whether the issue of jurisdiction is raised at trial or appeal, the correct course upon finding lack of jurisdiction is return of plaint, not dismissal – Held: Court must not enter into merits once jurisdiction is declined [Para 6].

Interpretation of Precedent – Mst. Ananti v. Channu No Longer Good Law – Full Bench decision in Mst. Ananti (AIR 1930 All 193) overruled in light of Supreme Court judgments in Athmanathaswami (AIR 1965 SC 338) and EXL Careers (2020) 12 SCC 667 – Held: Return of plaint is mandatory where jurisdiction is lacking, irrespective of trial stage reached [Paras 4–6].

Procedure – Fresh Suit in Competent Court – De Novo Trial Permitted – Where plaint is returned due to lack of jurisdiction, it can be presented to the appropriate forum – Plaintiff entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Trial to proceed afresh [Para 6].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments set aside – Direction issued to return the plaint – Liberty granted to appellants to present plaint before competent forum [Paras 6–9].

Service Law – Seniority Dispute – Bona Fide Correction Permissible – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant's seniority was initially fixed on the basis of incorrect date of appointment (01.01.1978 instead of 17.01.1978) – Upon correction, his position was changed from Serial No.23 to 47-A – Held: Authorities have the right to rectify bona fide mistakes in seniority lists – Employee has no vested right to seniority acquired due to administrative error – No junior was shown senior post-correction – Re-fixation justified [Paras 12–14].

Civil Suit – Seniority Challenge – Concurrent Findings – No Interference – Trial Court decreed suit directing re-fixation based on length of service – Lower Appellate Court reversed decree, upholding correction of appointment date and subsequent seniority – High Court upheld appellate findings – Held: No perversity or illegality in re-fixation of seniority; no interference warranted in second appeal [Paras 6–13].

Judgment – Second Appeal Dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – Lower Appellate Court’s reasoning based on undisputed facts and correct legal position – Appeal found meritless and dismissed [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Writ - Police Surveillance – History-Sheet – Single Case Registered in 2016 – History-Sheet Quashed – Petitioner had only one criminal case registered in 2016 under the Cow Slaughter Act – No further offence, complaint, or FIR registered – Despite this, history-sheet under Category 18-A was opened and representation for closure rejected – Held: No reasonable basis or suspicion to justify opening of history-sheet under Paragraphs 228 & 240 – Surveillance not warranted – Police acted without sufficient material [Paras 2-4, 6-14].

Constitutional Rights – Article 21 – Illegal Surveillance Violates Personal Liberty – Unwarranted use of history-sheet powers violates the citizen’s right to dignity and liberty – Supreme Court cautions against arbitrary surveillance in Govind v. State of M.P. and Malak Singh v. State of Punjab – Held: Power under Police Regulations is not unbridled – Must be backed by cogent reasons and prior criminal conduct – Absent in this case [Paras 9-11, 13-14].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Police Action – Non-Speaking and Mechanical Order – Representation for closure of history-sheet was rejected in a casual and mechanical manner without consideration of facts – Held: Order dated 23.06.2025 is arbitrary and unsustainable – Directions issued to close the history-sheet and refrain from further surveillance [Paras 11-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar quashed – Respondents directed to close History-Sheet No. 18-A and not to keep the petitioner under surveillance [Para 15].

Maintainability of Appeals – Jurisdiction of High Court under Land Grabbing Act – Special Courts Abolished – Appeals Not Maintainable - The batch of Land Grabbing Appeals challenged various orders of Special Tribunals constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – The issue arose whether appeals originally maintainable before the Special Court (abolished via G.O.Ms.No.420 dated 02.09.2016) could now be heard by the High Court as appellate authority – Held: High Court is not an appellate forum under the Act – The right to appeal perished with abolition of Special Court unless substituted by competent legislation – Appeals dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 16, 48-50, 84-90].

Statutory Construction – Interpretation of Notification vis-à-vis Statutory Provisions – G.O.Ms.No.420 dated 02.09.2016 – High Court Not Substituted as Appellate Forum – The Court held that while the State Government had the power to abolish the Special Court, it could not substitute the High Court as the appellate forum via executive notification – Such substitution could only be made by legislative amendment to the Act – Government Order held to be beyond the scope of statutory power under Section 7-A of the Act – Notification cannot override statutory provisions [Paras 49-56, 59, 60, 74].

Doctrine of Devolution and Successive Forum – Not Applicable – High Court Cannot Inherit Appellate Powers – The Court rejected the argument that appellate powers devolve upon the High Court due to abolition of the Special Court or by virtue of its superior judicial status – Held: Appeals are statutory and appeal forums must be provided by statute – No doctrine or administrative order can vest such power in the High Court without legislative sanction [Paras 73-77].

Writ Jurisdiction – Remedy Still Available – Orders of Special Tribunal Subject to Judicial Review – Though the appeals are not maintainable under the Act, the Court clarified that orders of Special Tribunals can still be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution – However, conversion of pending appeals into writ petitions was declined due to non-fulfillment of procedural requisites [Paras 81-88].

Final Decision – Land Grabbing Appeals Dismissed – Remedy Lies in Writ Petitions – Held: All Land Grabbing Appeals filed directly before the High Court or transferred from the abolished Special Court are dismissed as not maintainable – Appellants may file writ petitions within three months – Interim orders to continue for that duration [Paras 90-91].

Transfer of Civil Suit – Apprehension of Influence – Fair Trial Principle – Transfer Allowed – Applicants sought transfer of civil suits from Garhshankar to another jurisdiction citing apprehension of bias due to involvement of a local advocate, Madhu Bala, who earlier filed suit on behalf of the respondent and had influence over the local Bar – Entire Garhshankar Bar had gone on strike to support her during SDM proceedings, raising a legitimate apprehension of prejudice in the minds of applicants – Court held that even if influence is not actually exercised, the appearance of justice being done is essential – Suit transferred to Hoshiarpur in view of balancing convenience of both parties.

SARFAESI Act – Delay in Execution of Section 14 Order – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Bank sought implementation of order passed under Section 14 by CJM, Ludhiana – Tehsildar failed to take possession of secured assets – Held: Delay defeats purpose of SARFAESI Act which aims for expeditious recovery of NPAs – Writ allowed directing execution of order within 30 days [Paras 1-4].

Public Functionaries – Failure to Act on Statutory Duty – Condemned – Court found repeated cases of non-compliance by District and Revenue Authorities in executing orders under SARFAESI Act – Directed that such delays frustrate legislative intent and impose unnecessary financial burden on banking system – Warning issued against systemic neglect [Paras 5-7].

Judicial Training – Orientation Course Ordered – Compliance Failure – Citing continuous lapses, Court directed Chandigarh Judicial Academy to conduct orientation for all District Magistrates and Tehsildars in Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh on procedures and timelines under Section 14 – Emphasis on ensuring statutory compliance within prescribed deadlines [Paras 10-14].

SARFAESI Scheme – Role of District Magistrate – Ministerial Nature of Function – Relying on SC judgment in R.D. Jain & Co. v. Capital First Ltd., Court reiterated that powers under Section 14 are ministerial, not quasi-judicial – DM must act within 30 days, extendable to 60 days, and ensure execution within further 30 days – Delay in compliance to be treated as contempt [Paras 9, 14-15].

Final Directions – Writ Allowed – Time-bound Compliance Mandated – Direction to execute CJM order within 30 days – Ordered submission of compliance report by 07.11.2025 – Warning of contempt in case of further dereliction – Petition disposed accordingly [Paras 15-17].

Quashing - Criminal Complaint – Section 18(a)(i), 17B, and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act  - Conflicting Drug Test Reports – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Complaint Quashed – The Petitioners, including a pharmaceutical company and its directors, challenged the continuation of prosecution on the basis of a Government Analyst's report (CIPL, Ghaziabad) declaring their drug substandard – They relied upon a second test report by the Government Analyst, Vadodara certifying the same drug as of standard quality – Held: Where two official test reports conflict, and the latter exonerates the accused, the court must consider the version favorable to the accused – The Vadodara report was found to be an official document of impeccable quality and formed part of the investigation record – Petitioners were entitled to discharge and quashing of proceedings [Paras 86-100].

Consideration of Defence Documents – Sterling Quality Test – Exception to Debendra Nath Padhi – The court reiterated that ordinarily, defence documents cannot be considered at the stage of framing charge – However, if the documents are unimpeachable, official, and part of investigation, they may be considered – The Gujarat Government Analyst’s report met these criteria and cast serious doubt on the prosecution case [Paras 52-69].

Right to Challenge Analyst’s Report – Section 25 D&C Act – Violation of Procedure – The Drug Inspector failed to send the sample and report to the manufacturer (Petitioner), thereby depriving them of their right to challenge the analyst’s report under Section 25(3) – Even though the Petitioners attempted to challenge the report within 28 days of knowledge, they were denied this statutory safeguard [Paras 79-85].

Test Methodology – Discrepancy in Testing Standards – TLC vs HPLC – The impugned Ghaziabad laboratory report used the TLC method, but failed to perform a full assay due to lack of equipment – The Gujarat laboratory, using the same method, found the drug compliant – This disparity weakened the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence [Paras 94-96].

Prima Facie Case – Abuse of Process – Petition Allowed – The Court held that no prima facie case was made out and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process – The petition was allowed, complaint quashed, and Petitioners discharged [Paras 103-104].

Criminal Law - Section 138 NI Act - Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheque – Presumption of legal liability under Sections 118 and 139 arose – Accused failed to rebut the presumption by credible defence – Held: Courts below rightly convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act [Paras 6, 7, 18, 23, 25, 30].

Security Cheque Defence – Inconsistent Defence – Not Substantiated – Accused claimed cheque was taken by complainant as security – Defence found contradictory and unsupported by evidence – No account statement or documentation produced – Held: No plausible explanation given for holding blank cheques – Defence rightly rejected by courts below [Paras 5, 24-25].

Service of Notice – Presumption under General Clauses Act – Valid Service Established – Legal notice was sent to correct address – Accused failed to rebut statutory presumption of service – No payment made after receipt of court summons – Held: Notice deemed served under Section 27 of General Clauses Act – C.C. Alavi Haji principle applied [Paras 33-35].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference Permissible – No Perversity Shown – Held: Revisional court not to reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice – Findings of conviction supported by evidence – No error of law or jurisdiction found – Revision dismissed [Paras 13-17].

Sentence and Compensation – Not Excessive – Compensation Justified – Accused sentenced to 2 months’ simple imprisonment and ₹1,60,000 as compensation for dishonoured cheque of ₹90,000 – Held: Sentence not excessive given the deterrent object of the NI Act and 10-year delay in realisation – Compensation rightly awarded [Paras 37-40].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit in contention regarding limitation, lack of notice or absence of liability – Trial and appellate courts rightly convicted and sentenced the accused – No interference warranted [Paras 36, 42].

Arbitration Law – Interim Measure – Section 9 Arbitration Act – Relief Granted – The Petitioner sought interim protection to secure claims arising out of breach of a Gas Supply Agreement (GSA) where the Respondent failed to meet the Minimum Guaranteed Offtake (MGO) – Held: Under Section 9, the Court is empowered to grant interim measures for protection of contractual rights and to prevent frustration of arbitration – Relief granted in form of partial deposit and disclosure of assets [Paras 29-31].

Minimum Guaranteed Offtake (MGO) – Liquidated Damages – Enforceable Contractual Provision – The GSA provided for liquidated damages in case of shortfall in gas offtake – The Respondent argued that such damages were in the nature of penalty – Held: Where parties agreed on a clear formula and rate, such clauses are enforceable and do not constitute penalty per se – Prima facie, Petitioner established breach and entitlement [Paras 26-28].

Securing Arbitrable Claims – Balance of Convenience – The Court assessed whether a prima facie case was made out, and whether irreparable injury would be caused if interim protection was denied – Held: Respondent's financials showed insufficient liquidity; petitioner’s right needed safeguarding pending arbitration – Ordered Respondent to deposit ₹1.25 Crores and disclose assets [Paras 31-34].

Section 9 vs. Final Relief – Scope Clarified – The Court reiterated that a mini-trial is impermissible under Section 9 – However, where the claim is clear, liquidated, and based on an admitted contract, interim protection can be granted to safeguard the arbitration outcome [Para 27].

Interim Protection – Conditions for Grant – Application Partly Allowed – The Court partly allowed the petition by directing the Respondent to deposit ₹1.25 Crores with the Registrar General and disclose assets – Remaining prayers including attachment of property were declined at this stage [Paras 35-36].