Compassionate Appointment – Delay of nine years – SBI scheme withdrawn w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Death in 2003 but application filed in 2012 – Financial crisis long tided over – No vested right to appointment – Prayer rejected – Bank directed to process ex-gratia claim on submission of documents and to release family pension arrears without life certificate [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Delay and Laches – Father died in harness in 2003; petitioner attained majority in 2011 and applied in 2012; scheme for compassionate appointment withdrawn by SBI w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Held: application filed nearly nine years after death defeats the very object of compassionate appointment which is to alleviate immediate financial crisis – Petitioner’s family having survived the crisis, no right to appointment survives; rejection of request upheld [Paras 10–13].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Scheme – Petitioner argued that scheme prevalent at time of death (2003) should apply – Court: even under earlier scheme, application filed after inordinate delay cannot be entertained in view of principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 – Purpose is not employment by succession but immediate relief; delayed claim not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Ex-Gratia Compensation – SBI Scheme – Petitioner alternatively sought ex-gratia lump sum payment – SBI required certain additional documents (letter dated 15.12.2018) – Held: petitioner to furnish required documents within six weeks; SBI to decide claim within three months and either release admissible amount or communicate a reasoned order [Para 14].

Family Pension – Arrears – Petitioner entitled to arrears of family pension from February 2018 to July 2018 – Since matter remained pending before Court, arrears to be paid without insisting on a life certificate for that period; direction issued to release payment within three months [Para 15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Claim for compassionate appointment rejected – Directions issued for processing ex-gratia claim and release of family pension arrears [Para 16].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Appeal against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Financial Capacity and Rebuttal of Presumption – Complainant alleged advancing Rs. 10 Lakhs cash loan – Trial Court acquitted accused citing lack of evidence for transaction and probable defence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: Complainant failed to prove financial capacity or purpose of loan – Defence successfully rebutted presumption by establishing the cheque was likely a security for husband’s transaction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11].

Evidence – Financial Capacity – Lack of Documentation – Complainant, a financier, claimed to have lent Rs. 10 Lakhs in cash but failed to produce Income Tax records or mention the purpose of the loan – High Court affirmed that advancing such a high amount without documentation renders the initial case of the complainant "wobbly" even before presumption is raised [Paras 5, 9].

Cheque – Material Alterations and Execution – Signature on the cheque was in different ink compared to other entries – Complainant failed to depose that the cheque was filled by the accused in his presence – Circumstances supported the defence version that a blank cheque was issued as security rather than for the alleged debt [Para 10].

Presumption and Rebuttal – Standard of Proof – Accused examined herself (D.W.2) and produced documents relating to connected insolvency proceedings and other transactions involving her husband – Court held that the accused rebutted the statutory presumption to the level of preponderance of probability – Benefit of doubt rightly granted by Trial Court [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Condonation Refused – Petitioner, a government body, filed written statement over two years after service of summons dated 01.07.2019 – Trial court had earlier closed right to file WS on 26.09.2020 – Application under Section 151 CPC and Section 5 Limitation Act rejected – High Court upheld the order – Held: Courts can condone delay beyond 90 days only in rare and exceptional circumstances – Petitioner failed to justify delay or show any diligence [Paras 1–3, 13–15, 23–24]

Government Litigation – Blame on Counsel – Plea that panel counsel did not return files after resigning rejected – Petitioner’s own pleadings admitted return of files – No action taken against defaulting counsel – Held: Government body with access to legal officers cannot shirk responsibility by blaming counsel – Litigant must remain vigilant and is bound by acts of authorised counsel [Paras 3, 15–18, 23]

Limitation – Role of Government Departments – Petitioner pleaded administrative delay in appointing new counsel – Rejected – Held: Mere fact that petitioner is a government entity does not entitle it to automatic condonation of delay – Supreme Court precedents stress that law of limitation binds all equally – Delay attributable to bureaucratic inefficiency or red tape not a valid excuse [Paras 21–22]

Procedural Law – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Scope – Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and subsequent judgments clarified that 90-day timeline for filing written statement is directory but not to be routinely relaxed – Extension beyond 90 days to be allowed only in exceptional cases and with reasons recorded – Discretion not to be exercised in cases of negligence or tactical delay [Paras 7–12]

Costs – Frivolous Petition – Petition found frivolous and lacking in merit – Dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 – Directed to be paid to the respondent within two weeks – Recovery ordered from salary of erring officials responsible for negligence [Para 25]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial court’s refusal to condone delay in filing written statement upheld – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on petitioner to be recovered from salary of responsible officers – Trial court directed to expedite suit proceedings.

Criminal Procedure – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Right of Victim – Appellant sought leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in complaint involving serious offences under IPC – Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran held that victims have an unconditional right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. – High Court followed the same in Dharampal v. State of Haryana – Held: Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal [Paras 3–4]

Limitation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 13-day delay in filing the appeal – Delay condoned for sufficient cause shown [Para 1]

Decision: Application under Section 378(4) treated as appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Registry directed to transfer records to Sessions Judge, Mansa – Delay condoned – Appeal to proceed before Sessions Court.

Criminal Law – Arrest Warrants – Economic Offences – Petitioner challenged trial court’s order rejecting application under Section 70(2) CrPC for converting arrest warrants into bailable warrants – Allegation of tax evasion of over ₹10.65 crores under CGST and Customs Acts – Held: Offences are grave economic crimes with national fiscal implications – Petition raises significant legal issue involving conflicting High Court precedents – Matter referred to Larger Bench [Paras 1–5, 22–30]

Economic Offences – Tax Evasion – Gravity of Offence – Court held that economic offences involving fake ITC claims and massive loss to public exchequer must be viewed seriously – Mere readiness to appear or quantum of sentence is not sufficient ground to convert non-bailable warrants – White-collar crimes affect national economy and require stricter bail considerations [Paras 6–9, 12–17]

Judicial Precedent – Conflicting Coordinate Bench Decisions – In view of divergent rulings in P.C. Purohit v. Union of India and Girdhar Gopal Bajaria v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Court emphasized that judicial propriety demands matter be referred to Larger Bench – Coordinate Bench cannot override previous ruling of equal strength – Reference made to Chief Justice for constitution of Special/Larger Bench [Paras 22–30]

Decision: Petition not decided on merits – Matter referred to Special/Larger Bench to resolve conflict in precedents – Chief Justice requested to constitute appropriate bench to answer whether arrest warrants in serious economic and criminal cases can be converted into bailable warrants as a matter of right under Sections 70(2) CrPC or 72(2) BNSS.

Civil Procedure – Counter-claim – Maintainability of Additional Pleading by Co-defendant – Inter-defendant Claims – Rejected – Defendant No.1 sought leave to file a rejoinder/additional written statement in response to counter-claim raised by Defendant No.3 – Held: Under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, counter-claims can only be made by a defendant against a plaintiff and not inter se between co-defendants – Rule 9 does not permit a co-defendant to reply to such counter-claims, as 'parties' refers only to plaintiff and defendant in this context – Permitting such response would result in an impermissible trial within a trial between defendants – Application dismissed with costs [Paras 14–16, 20–22].

Statutory Interpretation – Ejusdem Generis – Application to CPC – Expression 'parties' under Order VIII Rule 9 to be read in the limited context of counter-claims as defined under Rule 6A – General provision must be interpreted in harmony with specific statutory framework – Co-defendant not a proper party to respond to a counter-claim unless made by or against the plaintiff [Paras 15–16].

Case Law Distinction – Inapplicability of Earlier Precedents – Orissa High Court ruling in Chandra Kishore v. Babulal Agarwala and Supreme Court decision in Noorul Hassan v. Nathakpam Indrajit Singh held inapplicable – The former concerned amendment post-pleadings and the latter pertained to election petition procedure under Representation of the People Act, not regular civil suits – Hence, not relevant to instant commercial suit under CPC framework [Paras 17–19].

Delay Tactics – Abuse of Process – Costs Imposed – Court held the application to be frivolous and a dilatory tactic to stall trial of the commercial suit – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1 payable to West Bengal State Legal Services Authority [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Application IA No. GA-COM/7/2025 dismissed – Co-defendant cannot file additional written statement against counter-claim of another co-defendant – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1, payable within two weeks.

Property Law – Matrimonial Home – Ownership – Respondent-husband held exclusive title over suit property based on registered Sale Deed – Appellant admitted property was purchased in respondent’s name and made limited loan repayments – Held: No co-ownership or proprietary interest established by appellant – Mere payment of a few instalments or residence during marriage does not create legal ownership rights – Benami plea barred under Benami Transactions Act [Paras 13–18, 23]

Civil Procedure – Mesne Profits – Partial Loan Contribution by Wife – Trial Court awarded mesne profits @ Rs. 3,000 per month – High Court noted appellant had made limited loan repayments and resided permissively during marriage – Respondent admitted joint contributions during cohabitation – Held: Award of mesne profits not justified in totality – Finding on mesne profits set aside [Paras 25–27]

Family Law – Right to Residence – Shared Household – Appellant claimed right to reside under Domestic Violence Act – High Court reaffirmed that right to reside in shared household is not absolute and does not confer ownership – Post-divorce, domestic relationship ceases and so does right to shared residence – Respondent entitled to seek eviction through lawful civil proceedings [Paras 20–22]

Evidence – Registered Document – Presumption of Validity – Sale Deed registered in respondent’s name remained unchallenged – Presumption of lawful execution upheld – Appellant’s admission in pleadings and cross-examination further corroborated ownership of respondent [Paras 11–15]

Appeal – Partial Interference – Findings of Trial Court on title and possession upheld – Findings on mesne profits/damages set aside – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 19, 28]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of possession upheld – Award of mesne profits/damages set aside – No error in Trial Court’s findings on ownership – Respondent entitled to recover possession – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Section 314 IPC – Illegal Abortion Causing Death – Conviction Confirmed – Appellant, an unqualified person, attempted to terminate pregnancy of deceased (8 months pregnant) using root-like object and fishing hook – Deceased died due to hemorrhage and septicemia following crude and unhygienic abortion – Eyewitness PW-1 (sister-in-law) and PW-3 (daughter of deceased) deposed to invasive act and pleas of victim to be taken to hospital – Medical evidence corroborated uterine perforation and presence of foetal parts – Held: Act was performed without medical qualification, consent of deceased does not exonerate appellant – Conviction under Section 314 IPC upheld [Paras 3–5, 11–13, 22–27, 32, 40–42]

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Corroboration – PW-1 and PW-3 provided consistent, credible eyewitness testimony of abortion being performed with fishing hook – Medical Officer (PW-5) confirmed cause of death as septicemia and hemorrhage due to mid-trimester incomplete abortion – Hook-like injuries matched medical findings – Testimony found natural, unimpeached and consistent with scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–13, 26–27, 29–30, 32]

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Plea for Reduction Rejected – Appellant claimed sentence excessive due to her old age (over 70 years) and lack of intention to cause death – Court held appellant’s actions were inherently dangerous and illegal, involving gross negligence and reckless disregard for life – Consent of victim to abortion irrelevant when procedure is manifestly unsafe – Held: Sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 314 IPC is just and proportionate – No mitigating circumstance warranting reduction [Paras 8, 33–39]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 314 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to undergo remaining part of sentence [Paras 40–43]

Stamp Act – Section 35 – Marking of unstamped/unregistered partition deed at interlocutory stage – Trial Court cannot compel payment of stamp duty and penalty before stage of evidence – Exhibits cannot be marked during IA hearing – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for decision on IA based on prima facie materials [Paras 5–8].

Stamp Act – Section 35 – Unstamped Instruments – When Duty/Penalty Payable – Under Section 35(a), an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument becomes admissible in evidence only upon payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty – However, such requirement arises only at the stage when a party seeks to admit the document in evidence – Held: At the IA stage, where evidence is not being formally collected, direction to pay duty and penalty is premature [Paras 4–6].

Interlocutory Proceedings – Marking of Exhibits – Improper at IA Stage – In an application for temporary injunction, documents may be looked into for prima facie satisfaction but cannot be formally marked as exhibits – Trial Court erred in marking Exs.P1–P6 and R1–R12 at the injunction stage – Exhibiting of documents is permissible only during trial when evidence is formally tendered [Paras 5–7].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Impounding – When Appropriate – Whether an unregistered partition deed requires impounding under Section 33 or attracting Section 35 consequences arises only when the document is sought to be admitted in evidence – Trial Court may consider impounding at the appropriate evidentiary stage during witness examination, but not at the IA stage [Paras 6–8].

Civil Revision – Impugned Order Illegal – Set Aside – Trial Court’s order directing payment of stamp duty and penalty before trial commenced held illegal and improper – Order quashed – Trial Court directed to decide I.A. No.477/2017 based on oral and documentary materials placed for prima facie consideration without treating them as exhibits [Paras 7–9].

Direction for Expeditious Disposal – Trial Court directed to dispose I.A. No.477/2017 within three weeks and the suit within one year, avoiding unnecessary adjournments; parties directed to cooperate [Para 10].