Constitutional Law – Disqualification under Tenth Schedule – Speaker’s decision – Judicial Review – Defection Established – Respondent No. 2, elected on BJP ticket, publicly associated with AITC through press conference on June 11, 2021 – Disqualification petition filed by petitioner on June 17, 2021 – Speaker rejected petition citing absence of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" – Held: Standard of proof under Tenth Schedule is preponderance of probabilities, not criminal standard – Speaker’s approach held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 46–48, 57]

Evidence Act – Electronic Records – Section 65B – Admissibility – Petitioner submitted social media screenshots, transcripts and CD of press conference with certificate – Speaker discarded evidence on hypertechnical grounds – Held: Certificate was submitted; even excluding electronic records, uncontroverted transcript and pleadings proved defection – Speaker’s rejection unjustified [Paras 52–55]

Pleadings – Doctrine of Non-Traverse – Unrebutted Allegations – Respondent No. 2 filed written comments and sur rejoinder but failed to deny core allegations of defection – Held: Material facts deemed admitted – Speaker failed to appreciate non-denial and misapplied evidentiary burden [Paras 35–38, 48]

Quasi-Judicial Role of Speaker – Judicial Review Permissible – Held: Speaker misapplied legal standard, failed to consider admitted facts and evidence – His decision vitiated by perversity and amenable to writ jurisdiction – High Court not required to remand due to urgency and lapse of time – Declared respondent disqualified with retrospective effect from date of defection [Paras 44–47, 60–66]

Appointment Set Aside – Consequence of Disqualification – Held: Since disqualification effective from June 11, 2021, respondent's appointment as Chairman of Public Accounts Committee is invalid and stands set aside [Para 68]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Order dated June 8, 2022 passed by Speaker quashed – Respondent No. 2 declared disqualified under Tenth Schedule w.e.f. June 11, 2021 – Speaker directed to take consequential steps – Appointment as PAC Chairman also set aside [Paras 66–68]

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.

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].

Service Law – Dismissal – Unauthorised Absence – Back Wages – “No Work No Pay” – Earlier LPA Granted Only Pensionary Benefits – No Direction for Back Wages – Employee Did Not Perform Duty for Period 09.06.2001–22.10.2007 – Held, Dependents Not Entitled to Back Wages; Treatment of Absence as Duty Without Pay for Pension Purposes Proper [Paras 10–12].

Pensionary Benefits – Earlier Judgment (22.11.2011) – Scope – Division Bench Only Directed Release of Amount in Pension Calculation Chart – No Mandate to Grant Back Wages – Appellant Having Accepted Pension Benefits Cannot Reopen Issue – Order Dated 22.03.2012 Consistent With Earlier LPA Directions [Paras 10–12].

Compassionate Appointment – Consideration – Dependent Daughter Failed Recruitment Test – Authorities Gave Multiple Opportunities and Guidance – Court Reiterates Direction to Consider Eligible Dependent as Per Rules – No Mandamus to Appoint – Only Consideration Permitted [Paras 8, 13–14].

Service Jurisprudence – “No Work No Pay” – Principle Reaffirmed – Back Wages Not Automatic Upon Quashing of Dismissal When No Work Rendered – Especially When Employee Was Absent and Later Died Before Fresh Enquiry Could Be Held [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Denial of back wages upheld – Direction to consider compassionate appointment reiterated, subject to eligibility [Para 14].

Execution of Decree – Rejection Of Objections Under Section 47 CPC - Joint Decree Holders – Order XXI Rule 15 CPC – Maintainability of Execution Application – Judgment-debtors objected to execution of joint decree filed by only one decree-holder without express statement of acting for others – Held: Rule 15 is enabling – Express recital is not mandatory if it appears execution is for benefit of all decree-holders – Absence of such recital does not invalidate execution – Judgment-debtors cannot raise objections if other decree-holders have not objected – Distinction drawn between money decrees and decrees for possession [Paras 6–18]

Execution of Decree – Identifiability of Suit Property – Judgment-debtors contended that execution was not possible as Ameen Map (part of decree) did not show disputed points स and द – Held: Decree and judgment clearly describe the disputed portions – Executing court can ascertain location based on pleadings and judgment – Relief not defeated by accidental omission in map [Paras 19–23]

Scope of Executing Court – Interpretation of Decree – Court has duty to interpret the decree in light of pleadings and proceedings – Executing court can go beyond face of decree to ascertain intent and property description – Reference to Pratibha Singh and Bhavan Vaja – Decree not inexecutable for lack of map markings [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of executing court and revisional court upheld – Objections under Section 47 CPC found to be meritless – Directions issued to executing court to decide execution case within six months from submission of certified order [Paras 24–25]

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 – 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 – Cognizance and Summons – Validity – Cognizance taken by trial court on police report against former Chief Minister and others under IPC and POCSO Act – Earlier cognizance order quashed due to lack of reasons – Trial court re-applied mind and passed fresh detailed order – Held: Procedure followed by trial court is in accordance with law – No grounds to interfere with cognizance or issuance of process [Paras 12, 18–19, 23(i)]

Sexual Offences – Allegations Against Public Figure – Victim aged 17 alleged sexual assault by accused No. 1 during a meeting at his residence – Accused Nos. 2 to 4 allegedly facilitated deletion of social media posts and attempted to silence complainant by inducement – Held: Allegations, if true, disclose cognizable offences – Whether they are true or politically motivated can only be tested in full trial – Quashing not warranted at this stage [Paras 9–10, 14, 17]

Earlier Writ Petitions – Binding Effect – Accused had earlier challenged first cognizance order – High Court remanded matter without deciding merits – Fresh challenge to second order barred on same grounds – Held: High Court had already held that allegations warrant trial – Petitioners cannot reargue settled issues – Remedy lies before trial court [Paras 11, 14, 17]

Relief from Personal Appearance – Aged Accused – Accused No. 1, aged and infirm, raised concern of harassment due to compulsory attendance – Held: Trial court directed not to insist on personal presence unless necessary – Exemption applications to be considered leniently [Para 21, 23(ii)]

Judicial Directions – Influence of Observations – Trial court directed to decide case uninfluenced by High Court’s observations in prior or present writ petitions – Proceedings to continue as per law based on evidence led [Paras 22–23(iii)]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Trial court’s order dated 28/02/2025 in Spl.C.C. No. 420/2025 upheld – Cognizance and summons sustained – Trial court not to insist on presence of accused No. 1 unless necessary – Petitioners free to seek discharge or any other remedy as available in law [Para 23]