Civil Law - Commercial Suit – Amendment of Plaint – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Application Allowed – Amended Pleading – The plaintiff moved an amendment application which was allowed on the same day – It was not clearly recorded whether the defendants opposed or conceded to the amendment – The defendants were granted time to file a written statement to the amended plaint [Paras 2-5].

Striking Off Defence – Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Improper Summons – Written Statement Not Filed – Defence Struck Off – The trial court struck off the defence for non-filing of written statement citing expiry of limitation – However, the summons served were for ‘Settlement of Issues’, not in proper commercial format – Held: The outer limit of 120 days for filing written statement had not expired – Reliance on Order 8 Rule 1 for striking off defence was misplaced post-amendment of plaint [Paras 6-12].

Decision – Written Statement Allowed on Record – Petition Allowed – In light of the fact that the statutory period for filing the written statement had not lapsed, and owing to the respondent's no-objection along with imposition of costs, the High Court allowed the petition – Directed that the written statement be deemed on record if already filed or else be submitted within 7 days, with further trial to proceed as per law [Paras 14-20].

Civil Law - Ex Parte Decree – Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Improper Service Alleged – Rejected – Petitioner challenged the ex parte decree passed in 2014 on grounds of improper service, asserting erroneous address and irregular Munadi – Held: Address used matched that in earlier sale documents signed by petitioner; service through Munadi was legally ordered after satisfaction of the court regarding evasion – No merit in petitioner’s claim of improper service or procedural fault [Paras 7–11].

Delay in Filing – Absence of Disclosure of Knowledge Date – Presumption of Knowledge Established – Application to set aside ex parte decree filed in 2018 without specifying when or how petitioner gained knowledge of the decree passed in 2014 – Held: The unexplained four-year delay, combined with evidence of petitioner's prior awareness and procedural compliance, justified rejection of the application [Para 12].

Misuse of Legal Process – Abuse of Order 9 Rule 13 to Delay Execution – Court observed widespread misuse of Order 9 Rule 13 by defendants in specific performance suits to stall execution proceedings – Held: Petitioner’s conduct reflects such abuse and amounts to misuse of process causing judicial delay – No interference warranted [Para 9, 12].

Service on Female Member – Not Fatal in Present Case – Though service on adult female member may not meet procedural standards post amendment to Order 15 Rule 5 CPC – Held: Petitioner had independently appeared in execution proceedings and had been validly served through other means – The judgment in Sanjeev Kumar v. Vinod Kumar Mahajan inapplicable in facts [Para 13].

Decision: Revision Petition – Dismissed – Orders of Trial and Appellate Courts Affirmed – The Court found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings dismissing the petitioner’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Revision petition found meritless and dismissed accordingly [Paras 14–15].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Filing of False Criminal Complaint – Divorce Upheld – The wife filed a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family, leading to their arrest and bail – The charges were not proved and they were acquitted – Held: The act of filing such unsubstantiated criminal proceedings caused social stigma and trauma, amounting to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce rightly granted [Paras 13–23, 38].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation – Court’s Finding – The parties were living separately for 29 years with no substantial cohabitation after marriage – Despite the wife’s affidavit expressing willingness to reunite, the Court found reconciliation impossible due to bitterness caused by past conduct – Held: Matrimonial bond was beyond repair – Divorce decree sustained [Paras 15, 39–42].

Standard of Proof – Civil Nature of Proceedings – The Court reiterated that in matrimonial cases, cruelty must be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Mental cruelty, being subjective, is inferred from overall conduct and impact – False criminal complaints, even if resulting in acquittal, can suffice for establishing cruelty [Paras 31, 34].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Trial Court’s decree of divorce was upheld – The ground of mental cruelty was proved – Reversal would only prolong hardship – No error in the trial court's judgment [Paras 42–44].

Tenancy Law - Thika Tenancy – Interpretation of Documentary Evidence – Declaration of Thika Tenancy Upheld – The plaintiffs claimed rights as thika tenants over a property comprising 21 rooms based on tenancy of their predecessor Khalil Choudhury – Defendants claimed ownership by purchase deeds and will – Trial Court dismissed suit holding Khalil was not a thika tenant – First Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding Khalil’s name appeared in rent receipts and his possession of 8 rooms indicated tenancy – Held: Appellate Court’s view reasonable, supported by documents and not perverse – Declaration of thika tenancy affirmed [Paras 6, 16–18, 23].

Ownership vs. Tenancy Rights – Simultaneous Vesting Not Permissible – Appellants contended that claim of thika tenancy and ownership could not coexist – Held: Even if ownership by purchase was assumed, in absence of surrender, the thika tenancy rights of Khalil subsist under new landlord – Rights are independent and subsisting unless relinquished [Para 22].

Jurisdiction – Civil Court Competence – Thika Tenancy Disputes Prior to 2010 Amendment – Objection to jurisdiction raised citing amendment to 2001 Act – Held: Since suit filed in 1978, prior to 2010 amendment, civil court was competent to decide thika tenancy rights – Amendment not retrospective – Jurisdiction upheld [Paras 25–26].

Inheritance under Mohammedan Law – Rights of Grandchildren – Respondents claimed ownership under inheritance as residuary heirs – Appellants contested bequest under will to grandchildren – Held: Issue not determinative since suit confined to thika tenancy rights – However, noted that under Sunni Law, grandchildren through predeceased daughter not direct heirs; will cannot operate beyond 1/3rd share without consent [Paras 13–14, 24].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with First Appellate Court’s Finding – Appellate Court found Khalil to be thika tenant based on documents and admissions – High Court held such finding was not perverse nor based on inadmissible evidence – Interference not warranted in second appeal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 27–29].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance to Wife – Refusal Based on Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Decree Not Sufficient by Itself – The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife solely on the ground of her non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Held: As per Apex Court precedent, mere existence of such decree is not sufficient to disentitle a wife from maintenance – The husband must further establish that wife left without sufficient reason – Failure to consider this led to legal error in the order [Paras 3–4].

Maintenance to Daughter – Inadequate Reasoning for Quantum – Family Court awarded Rs. 2000/month till 06.05.2024 and Rs. 5000/month thereafter to the minor daughter – Held: Trial Court failed to assign reasons or consider father’s income and lifestyle to justify the quantum – Order suffers illegality on this count – Matter remitted for fresh decision [Para 6].

Conflicting Pleas – Incongruity Between Seeking Restitution and Divorce – Husband had sought divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act while simultaneously citing wife’s refusal to comply with decree of restitution – Held: This contradiction casts doubt on husband’s case and should have been considered in evaluating sufficiency of wife’s cause to live separately [Para 5].

Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Interim Maintenance Directed – The impugned order of the Family Court is set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal within 3 months – Meanwhile, interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/month each to wife and daughter directed from 01.04.2025, to be adjusted in final award [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Law - Bail under PMLA – Continued Incarceration – Right to Liberty – Bail Granted - Petitioner implicated under PMLA for alleged role in diversion of funds through Shivakriti Agro Pvt. Ltd. and facilitating re-acquisition of M/s Sunstar Overseas Ltd. via shell entities – Though alleged to be a close aide of key accused Rohit Aggarwal, petitioner not named in predicate offence FIR or chargesheet – Held: Petitioner had cooperated in investigation and was not found to have personally benefitted from proceeds of crime – Main accused not arrested – Trial in predicate offence and PMLA complaint at nascent stage – Petitioner in custody for over 10 months – Following SC precedent in V. Senthil Balaji and others, continued custody would violate Article 21 rights – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 24–38].

Civil Procedure – Striking Off Defence – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner’s defence was struck off for failure to file written statement within the prescribed period – Though petitioner appeared after affixation service, no request for time or application to file written statement was made – High Court held that mere appearance does not extend limitation, and delay was unexplained – Petition dismissed for lack of diligence [Paras 7–12, 17].

Section 151 CPC – Recall of Orders – No Justifiable Grounds for Delay – Applications Dismissed – Applications to recall orders striking off defence and denying right to lead evidence were filed nearly a year later – Delay attributed to counsel’s alleged non-guidance found unconvincing – Petitioner failed to explain inaction after engaging new counsel – Held: Recall application was misconceived and rightly rejected [Paras 15–17].

Right to Lead Evidence – Bar When Defence is Struck Off – Limited Rights Remain – Defendant sought to lead evidence to dispute genuineness of lease documents – Held impermissible in absence of written statement – After striking off defence, defendant has only limited right to cross-examine and cannot introduce independent evidence [Paras 13, 18].

Final Relief – No Perversity or Illegality – Dismissal Upheld – High Court found no legal error in trial court’s orders – Petition under Article 227 dismissed as meritless – Cost orders and denial of evidence upheld [Paras 19–20].
 

Education Law – NMC Guidelines – Retrospective Application Denied – Petitioners challenged refusal to revise their MBBS supplementary exam results declared on 18.08.2023 in accordance with the amended CBME guidelines reducing passing criteria from 50% to 40% – Interpretation of Notifications – Retrospective vs Prospective Operation – Notification dated 01.09.2023 of NMC not Clarificatory – Held: The 01.09.2023 notification introduced a substantive amendment reducing passing marks from 50% to 40% and cannot be construed as clarificatory or retrospective – Absence of express retrospective intent and the declaration via 03.10.2023 public notice confirming prospective application precludes retrospective application – Notification impacts substantive rights and thus must be read prospectively [Paras 9.1–9.4].

Supplementary Examinations – Continuation of Main Exam – Same Norms to Apply – Held: Supplementary exams are not distinct but a continuation of the main examination cycle – They must adhere to the standards applicable at the time of the main examination – Allowing disparate norms undermines uniformity, parity, and academic integrity – Petitioners’ reliance on declaration date of results (18.08.2023) does not alter the legal position [Para 9.4].
Equitable Relief – Interim Order and Equity – Interim Relief Cannot Override Law – Held: Although interim benefit was granted on 07.11.2023, courts cannot convert interim orders into final reliefs where statutory prescriptions and public interest demand strict adherence to norms – Equity cannot override substantive law especially in high-stakes professional disciplines like medicine – Public interest outweighs individual hardship [Paras 10–10.1].

Binding Nature of Precedents – Decisions of Other High Courts – Not Binding, Only Persuasive – Held: Judgments of Madras and Kerala High Courts granting retrospective effect to 01.09.2023 notification are not binding – This Court respectfully disagrees with the reasoning of those courts – Inter-court precedent not mandatory, especially when factual distinctions and legal reasoning diverge – Only Supreme Court decisions are binding across all High Courts [Paras 11–13].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to benefit of revised guidelines dated 01.08.2023 and 01.09.2023 for supplementary exams held prior thereto – No costs imposed [Para 14].

Family Law - Maintenance to Children – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum Justified – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order awarding ₹3,000 per month to each of his three minor children, alleging the income assessment was incorrect – Held: Petitioner is an able-bodied labourer assessed to earn ₹17,000/month, while wife earns ₹8,000/month and receives DV maintenance – Court rightly held petitioner liable for maintenance of children as joint responsibility – No perversity found in the impugned order [Paras 2, 10].

Purpose of Maintenance – Social Justice Objective – Protection from Destitution – Judicial Affirmation – Reiterated that Section 125 Cr.P.C. aims to prevent destitution and vagrancy of dependents – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Vimala v. Veeraswamy, (1991) 2 SCC 375, and Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479, emphasizing its social justice objective and protective function [Paras 5–7].

Determination Criteria – Maintenance Quantum – Guided by Rajnesh v. Neha Principles – Referring to Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court reiterated mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities and realistic assessment of earning capacities to ensure neither party is reduced to penury – Award must reflect socio-economic status and needs of dependents [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – Family Court Order Affirmed – Family Court's findings were based on cogent appreciation of evidence and legal standards – No interference warranted as petitioner failed to show any legal infirmity or perversity – Petition dismissed [Paras 4, 10].