Service Law - Fraudulent Appointment – Use of Forged Documents – Appointment Cancelled - The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 but his appointment was cancelled in 2022 on the grounds that forged educational documents and identity were used – The Court found discrepancies in the petitioner’s PAN, Aadhar, B.T.C. Certificate, and academic documents, indicating impersonation – Verification by police revealed that no person by petitioner’s claimed name resided at the stated address – Held: Petitioner’s appointment was obtained through fraud, hence void ab initio, and liable to cancellation without need for departmental enquiry [Paras 2-4, 24-34].

Natural Justice – Scope in Fraudulent Appointment Cases – No Enquiry Required - The petitioner alleged non-service of show cause notice and violation of principles of natural justice – The Court held that where fraud is evident, principles of natural justice need not be applied rigidly and no detailed departmental enquiry is necessary – Citing various precedents, it was reiterated that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and appointments based on fraud cannot be sustained [Paras 18-23, 26, 33].

Eligibility and Misrepresentation – Name Discrepancies Across Records – Fraud Proven - The petitioner failed to explain discrepancies in his name across different records such as “Kamlesh,” “Kamlesh Kumar,” and “Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari” – Misuse of another individual’s certificates was established through investigation – Held: The mismatch and impersonation confirm fraudulent entry into service, disentitling petitioner to any equitable relief [Paras 28-32].

Relief – Appointment Void Ab Initio – No Protection or Reinstatement - The petitioner was not entitled to salary or reinstatement – Court reaffirmed that fraudulent appointments do not confer any right, and disciplinary proceedings under Article 311 or service rules are unnecessary in such cases – Held: Impugned order cancelling appointment and recovery of salary is lawful and does not warrant interference [Paras 35-37].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, and 420 of the IPC - Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act - Serious Allegations of Corruption – Prima Facie Case Established – Bail Denied - The petitioner, a former writer at the Traffic Enforcement Unit, Muvattupuzha, was accused of misappropriating ₹20,90,750/- through falsification of expenditure vouchers and bank entries – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail on grounds of personal hardship and alleged bias – The Court, upon detailed scrutiny of case diary, statements of multiple bank officials, and recovery of incriminating documents, held that a strong prima facie case existed – Held: No exceptional circumstances shown; anticipatory bail denied [Paras 1-16].

Evidence – Testimony of Bank Staff – Direct Attribution to Accused – Bail Justifiably Refused - Multiple officials from State Bank of India confirmed that remittances from the police department were handled solely by the petitioner – Statements consistently proved manipulation of duplicate and triplicate vouchers post-bank seal – Recovery of 400+ vouchers and cash books from her residence during judicial search corroborated allegations – Held: Direct role in remittance and manipulation stands established for custodial interrogation [Paras 8-13].

Financial Discrepancy – Lifestyle and Income Mismatch – Chitty Remittances Unexplained - Petitioner’s net salary was ₹21,000 with EMI liabilities – Yet she participated in multiple chitties and incurred substantial expenses – Annexure A8 bank statement failed to show alternate legitimate sources of such funds – Held: Unaccounted funds raised suspicion, supporting prosecution case of embezzlement [Paras 10, 13-14].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity for Handwriting Samples – Grant of Bail Would Hinder Investigation - Investigation required collecting handwriting and signature samples for forensic comparison – Court held custodial interrogation necessary to trace fund origin, examine falsified documents – Held: Bail at this stage would impair effective prosecution in a serious corruption case [Paras 13-15].

Corruption Cases – Grant of Bail Only in Exceptional Circumstances – No Falsity or Political Bias Alleged - Relying on Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab [2025 KHC 6219], Court reiterated that anticipatory bail in corruption cases is to be granted only where false implication or political vendetta is apparent – Held: Neither ground made out in present case – Bail refused [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Direction to Cooperate with Investigation - Application dismissed with direction to petitioner to surrender before Investigating Officer immediately – On failure, liberty granted to officer to proceed with arrest as per law [Para 16].

Criminal Law  – Conviction for Repeated Rape of Minor – Testimony of Prosecutrix Reliable – Conviction Upheld – The prosecutrix, minor step-daughter of the appellant’s live-in partner, alleged repeated acts of rape over two years at two residences – The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on her consistent and credible testimony – Held: Her version was corroborated by medical evidence (torn hymen), FIR, and statements – The defence theory of consensual relationship and false implication was rejected – Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 1–13].

Evidentiary Value – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – No Corroboration Required – The Court reiterated that a conviction under Section 376 IPC can be based solely on the unimpeached, consistent testimony of the prosecutrix – Cited Supreme Court rulings affirming that corroboration is a matter of prudence, not law – Absence of injuries not fatal – The prosecutrix’s evidence found trustworthy and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10.1, 11–12].

Sentence Reduction – Mitigating Factors Considered – Long Pendency, Family Hardship, Good Conduct – Though conviction was upheld, sentence reduced from 10 years to 6 years RI – The Court noted: (a) 21 years had passed since the incident, (b) appellant is sole earner with three minor daughters, (c) nearly 5 years of sentence already undergone with no misuse of liberty and satisfactory jail conduct – Held: Sentence modified in light of mitigating factors, while emphasising that offence remains serious [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified to 6 Years RI – Appellant directed to surrender within 3 days – Trial Court to ensure compliance – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 16–19].

Civil Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Counterclaim Proceeded – Appeal by Plaintiff Abandoned - Plaintiff failed to appear, resulting in dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution – However, defendant’s counterclaim for ₹1.68 crores was entertained as it was filed with appropriate stamp duty and supported by evidence – Held: Defendant permitted to proceed with counterclaim despite dismissal of original suit [Paras 2-4].

Counterclaim – Promissory Note and Deed of Undertaking – Execution Admitted – Counterclaim Decreed - Defendant relied on Ex.D1 (promissory note for ₹1.68 crores) and Ex.D2 (deed of undertaking) both executed by the plaintiff – Cheques issued by plaintiff were dishonoured and police complaint resulted in registration of FIR – Plaintiff did not appear to refute documents – Held: Counterclaim proved through oral and documentary evidence; decree granted as prayed for [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Plaintiff Misused Blank Signed Promissory Notes – FIR Registered – Supporting Evidence Marked - Defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had collected funds in a fraudulent scheme involving auctioned goods purportedly through the Central Excise Department – Supporting cheques and their dishonour established through Exs.D3 to D10 – Criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC pending – Held: Sufficient material to support counterclaim of misuse and liability [Paras 3-4, 7-9].

Law of Indemnity – Affirmation of Ownership and Inducement – Defendant Entitled to Recover Losses - Citing Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bingham 66, court reiterated that a person misrepresenting authority or ownership and inducing another into transactions is liable to compensate – Held: Defendant entitled to recover loss from plaintiff under indemnity principles [Para 8].

Decision – Counterclaim Decreed – ₹1.68 Crores with Costs – Suit Dismissed – Judgment for Defendant - Plaintiff’s suit dismissed without trial – Defendant’s counterclaim allowed based on unrefuted evidence – Judgment and decree granted for ₹1.68 crores with costs [Para 9].

Partition Suit – Successive Litigation – Abuse of Process – Plaintiff in O.S. No.36 of 2021 was 16th defendant in earlier partition suit O.S. No.1407 of 2015 – Earlier suit rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on finding that property belonged to deceased husband as sole heir – No appeal or challenge to said rejection – Held: Subsequent suit on same cause of action amounts to abuse of process and is barred – Plaintiff cannot re-agitate same claim without setting aside earlier decree – Suit struck off under Article 227 of Constitution [Paras 3, 4, 8, 16, 22, 23].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 14 and 15 – Stridhan Property – Devolution – Property purchased by Kamalammal from her stridhan funds became her absolute property under Section 14 – Upon intestate death, devolves under Section 15(1)(a) and not under Section 15(2)(a) – Held: Surviving husband rightly inherited full interest – Plaintiff's claim as heir of father not maintainable – Will by husband valid – No share accrues to plaintiff [Paras 17, 19, 20, 22].

Re-litigation – Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Striking off of Plaint – When fresh suit is based on same cause and factual matrix as earlier suit which has attained finality – Filing of new suit without curing defects amounts to disguised re-litigation – Held: Even if alternate remedy exists, High Court can intervene to prevent misuse of court process – Suit struck off in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction [Paras 15, 21, 23].

Order VII Rule 13 CPC – Scope – Permits fresh suit after rejection under Rule 11 only if defects are cured – Held: In present case, fundamental ground of rejection remained unchanged – Mere refiling without curing legal bar does not revive cause – No protection under Rule 13 available [Paras 5, 15].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Suit in O.S. No.36 of 2021 struck off as not maintainable – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs [Para 24].

Administrative Law – Cancellation of Tender – Delay in Communication of Government Approval – Arbitrary Action by State Instrumentality – Decision Set Aside – CIDCO cancelled the tender process for allotment of hospital plot despite approval being granted by the Chief Minister for the revised eligibility criteria which included partnership firms like the Petitioner – Court held that CIDCO’s inaction in not following up on approval and subsequent cancellation was arbitrary and perverse – CIDCO’s justification of non-receipt of communication was not accepted – Held: Cancellation order dated 4 October 2024 is unsustainable and set aside [Paras 16–18, 24–25].

Public Auctions – Legitimate Expectation – Highest Bidder Denied Allotment Due to Fault of Authority – Relief Granted – Petitioner, though highest bidder offering price above revised base value, was denied allotment – Court held Petitioner had legitimate expectation as CIDCO had allowed participation of partnership firms and later relied on internal delay to cancel tender – Held: Petitioner cannot be penalised for CIDCO’s failure to act diligently – Directed issuance of allotment letter to Petitioner [Paras 14–17, 25].

Reasoned Orders – Requirement Under Law – Vague Administrative Grounds Not Sufficient – Decision Must Record Justifiable Reasons – CIDCO’s cancellation order failed to disclose valid reasons – Vague reference to “administrative grounds” held insufficient – Reliance placed on SC decisions emphasizing need for reasoned administrative orders – Mere anticipation of higher price or reference to other plots not a valid ground in facts of case [Paras 16, 21].

Public Interest – Healthcare Infrastructure – Plots Earmarked for Hospitals – Delay in Allotment Impacts Public Services – Court noted that the plot in question was earmarked for hospital use in Navi Mumbai and delay in allotment deprived local residents of essential healthcare – Speculative commercial motives of CIDCO held contrary to public interest in this context – Directed prompt finalization in favour of Petitioner [Paras 23–24].

Final Relief – Writ Allowed – Cancellation Set Aside – CIDCO Directed to Issue Allotment Letter – Writ Petition allowed – CIDCO’s decision dated 4 October 2024 quashed – CIDCO directed to allot Plot No.25 to the Petitioner as per procedure [Para 25].

Rent—Order 15-A CPC—Scope of deposit obligation—Fixation of rent disputed—Second eventuality under O.15-A attracted—Upon judicial fixation, tenant must deposit arrears computed on the fixed rent up to the date of fixation and continue to deposit future rent as it falls due—Trial Court’s provisional fixation at ₹20,000 p.m. with arrears ₹21,10,000 from 16-04-2016 to 31-01-2025 sustained [Paras 10, 13-15].

Procedure—Application titled under S.151 CPC—Substance over form—Application treated as under O.15-A CPC having regard to pleadings, arguments, and treatment by Trial Court and High Court—Label of provision not determinative [Paras 8-9,12-13].

Eviction suit—Interim monetary directions—Prior remand—Earlier CRP (No. 447/2024) set aside ₹30,000 p.m. and directed enquiry to fix reasonable rent; Trial Court thereafter fixed ₹20,000 p.m. provisionally—No interference warranted in revision [Paras 2-3, 15].

Practice & Procedure—Striking off defence—Observation by Trial Court—Though beyond prayer, merely reiterative of O.15-A consequence; any actual striking off requires a separate order—No jurisdictional error [Para 7].

Decision—Civil Revision Petition dismissed—No order as to costs—Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 16].

Matrimonial Law – Civil Revision - Interim Maintenance – Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Maintenance to Wife Set Aside – The petitioner-husband challenged the Family Court’s order directing him to pay ₹30,000/- per month each to his wife and son – While not disputing maintenance to the son, the petitioner contended that the wife was financially self-sufficient with substantial dividend income and valuable immovable assets – Held: The respondent-wife received significant income through dividends and owned immovable property – Interim maintenance to the wife not justified – Order of Family Court awarding maintenance to wife set aside; maintenance to son upheld [Paras 2, 11-16, 19-20].

Maintenance – Scope and Object of Section 24 HMA – Determination of "Sufficient Income" – Section 24 intended to ensure support during proceedings, not to enrich financially capable spouse – Held: Maintenance under Section 24 is for sustenance at the standard enjoyed in matrimonial home – Where wife has independent substantial income and assets, claim for interim maintenance not sustainable [Paras 13-16, 19].

Suppression of Income – Dividend and Asset Ownership – Conduct of Wife – Dividends from Scan World Pvt. Ltd. and re-transfer of property during proceedings considered material – Held: Respondent’s act of restraining dividend payout through NCLT and subsequent explanations for property transfer not bona fide – Court found deliberate suppression of income to justify maintenance claim – Family Court erred in overlooking these facts [Paras 5-8, 15].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Order awarding maintenance to wife set aside – Maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month to son and NEET coaching fee of ₹2.77 lakhs already paid by petitioner not challenged – Held: Family Court order modified accordingly; no costs awarded [Paras 12, 20].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Protection of Life and Liberty – Petitioner, a practicing advocate, sought police protection alleging threats from his former clients (respondents No.5 and 6) over refund of professional fees – Court directed SSP Mohali and SSP Chandigarh to examine representations dated 02.06.2025 and 23.07.2025 and to take necessary action to ensure protection of petitioner’s life and liberty [Paras 1–3].

Advocate–Client Relationship – Professional Misconduct Allegations – Respondents No.5 and 6, former clients of the petitioner, alleged that petitioner had demanded and accepted ₹5.45 lakh purportedly for payment to a Government Pleader and Judicial Officer for obtaining a favourable court order – Court noted gravity of allegation and absence of specific names but observed that such allegations, if true, affect integrity of judicial institution [Paras 11–13].

Criminal Misconduct – Integrity of Judicial System – Court took judicial notice of a recent FIR by CBI ACB Chandigarh against another advocate for similar allegations of bribery in the name of a Judicial Officer – Observed that issues involved go beyond personal threats and touch upon integrity of the Bench and Bar as twin pillars of the justice system [Paras 14–15].

Investigation – Referral to CBI – Considering seriousness, sensitivity, and need for impartial inquiry, Court directed that entire matter, including threats and allegations of corruption, be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for detailed investigation – CBI directed to take cognizance immediately and submit report within stipulated time – All concerned authorities to cooperate [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Matter referred to CBI for comprehensive investigation into threats and alleged professional misconduct of the petitioner [Para 18].