Criminal Law – Bail – Recall of Bail Order – Distinction Between Recall and Cancellation – Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by CGST Department seeking recall of bail granted by learned CMM – Held: Challenge to grant of bail on merits stands on a different footing from cancellation of bail based on supervening circumstances – Bail order can be interfered with only if found illegal, perverse, arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations [Paras 38–40].

Economic Offences – GST Evasion – Gravity of Allegations – Bail Considerations – Allegations of clandestine manufacture and sale of banned gutka with alleged GST evasion of Rs. 831.72 crores – Court observed that seriousness of offence alone cannot justify recall of bail when investigation is primarily documentary and material already in possession of Department – Prolonged incarceration not warranted merely on basis of estimated figures founded on assumptions [Paras 45–46].

Bail Order – Exercise of Judicial Discretion – No Perversity or Illegality – Learned CMM considered nature of allegations, role attributed to accused, period of custody, stage of investigation and material collected – Bail granted after due application of mind – Held: Discretion exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously [Paras 44–45].

Confessional Statements – Evidentiary Value – Bail Stage – Department relied heavily on voluntary statements recorded under CGST Act – Respondent claimed retraction and relied on law laid down in Toofan Singh – Court held that veracity and evidentiary value of such statements is matter for trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at bail stage [Paras 26, 46].

Bail – No Misuse of Liberty – Absence of Supervening Circumstances – Bail granted in March 2021 and no allegation of violation of bail conditions, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or obstructing trial – Held: In absence of misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances, recall of bail is not justified [Paras 47–48].

Socio-Economic Offences – Bail Jurisprudence – While economic offences require careful scrutiny, courts must still balance gravity with personal liberty – Bail once granted should not be interfered with mechanically or as a retaliatory measure by investigating agency [Paras 41–43].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail order dated 17.03.2021 upheld – No ground made out for recall or interference – Pending applications disposed of.

Blacklisting – Indefinite Debarment – Violation of Natural Justice – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioner company providing manpower services challenged blacklisting order passed by District Basic Education Officer without specifying duration – Blacklisting held to have serious civil consequences and cannot be open-ended – Failure to consider petitioner’s replies and supporting documents renders order arbitrary – Held: Indefinite blacklisting without defined period is impermissible in law and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution [Paras 12–14, 22–23].

Administrative Action – Scope of Contract – Unilateral Expansion – Illegality – Direction issued to petitioner to prepare merit list of 504 candidates after verification of original documents not part of original bid conditions or Government Order dated 26.07.2024 – Such unilateral expansion of scope of work dehors contractual framework could not form basis for punitive action – Non-compliance with extraneous directions cannot justify blacklisting [Paras 8, 14].

Natural Justice – Show Cause Notice – Consideration of Reply – Mandatory Requirement – Despite multiple replies submitted by petitioner, impugned blacklisting order did not advert to or consider defence taken – No material forming basis of decision supplied prior to passing order – Held: Order suffers from procedural unfairness and is vitiated for non-compliance with principles of natural justice [Paras 9, 14, 22].

Blacklisting – Competent Authority – Lack of Jurisdiction – Government Order dated 26.07.2024 provides that disputes relating to selection process are to be decided by District Magistrate – District Basic Education Officer, having raised allegations, could not act as judge in his own cause – Blacklisting order passed by Respondent No.4 held without authority and void in law [Paras 24–25].

Judicial Review – Remand – Interim Protection – Blacklisting order quashed – Matter remitted to District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur for fresh decision after granting opportunity of hearing – Petitioner permitted to participate in future tenders for eight weeks or till fresh decision, whichever earlier [Paras 26–28].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Impugned blacklisting order dated 26.11.2025 quashed – Matter remitted to District Magistrate for fresh consideration – No order as to costs

Motor Vehicles Act – Claims Tribunal Procedure – Deletion of Party – Prematurity – Order Quashed – Claimants challenged MACT order deleting insurer (Respondent No.2) at preliminary stage on ground that policy covered only own damage – Tribunal passed order before completion of pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence – Held: MACT cannot decide insurer’s liability piecemeal without full inquiry as mandated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Impugned order contrary to statutory scheme and Rules – Deletion set aside [Paras 3–4, 15, 18].

Claims Tribunal – Applicability of CPC – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Applicable – Goa Motor Vehicles Rules specify limited application of CPC provisions to MACT proceedings – Order I Rule 10 CPC not extended to Tribunal under Rule 300 – Tribunal lacks power to drop or implead parties based on preliminary examination without inquiry – Pleas regarding liability must be adjudicated after evidence [Paras 14–15].

Insurance Liability – Determination Requires Evidence – Contract of Insurance – Dispute whether vehicle was insured only for own damage or also for third party risk – Existence of multiple insurers pleaded – Held: Determination of inter se liability of insurers depends on proof of insurance contracts and evidence – Such issues cannot be decided at threshold [Paras 5, 7, 15, 18].

Summary Procedure – Not Piecemeal Adjudication – Though MACT follows summary procedure, it must decide all issues together in one inquiry – Reliance placed on Bimlesh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Tribunal erred in deciding maintainability and liability in isolation – Inquiry must culminate in a comprehensive award [Paras 16, 18].

Deletion of Party – Demurrer Principle – Premature Exercise of Power – Plea that claim discloses no cause of action against insurer must be tested assuming pleadings to be true – Following Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Manish Kumar – Deletion at preliminary stage before evidence held impermissible [Paras 17–18].

Consequential Directions – Recasting of Issues and Fresh Inquiry – Respondent No.5 later filed written statement during pendency of writ petition – Issues framed in absence of Respondent No.2 held unsustainable – Tribunal directed to recast issues after restoring Respondent No.2 and proceed with evidence and final award [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 10.08.2023 deleting Respondent No.2 quashed and set aside – MACT directed to recast issues after completion of pleadings and decide claim petition after recording evidence of all parties – Rule made absolute [Para 20].

Preventive Detention – PITNDPS Act – Territorial Jurisdiction – Forum Conveniens – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner challenged detention order passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India and rejection of representations – Though detention order and memoranda were issued from Delhi, predicate offences, sponsoring authority, records and petitioner’s residence were all situated in West Bengal – Held: Delhi High Court possessed jurisdiction as part of cause of action arose in Delhi, but declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction applying doctrine of forum conveniens – Petition dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate High Court [Paras 1, 5, 9, 17–18].

Article 226(2) – Cause of Action in Part – Not Determinative – Mere existence of jurisdiction under Article 226(2) does not mandate exercise thereof – Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction, High Court may refuse to entertain petition if another forum is more appropriate and convenient – Jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction distinguished [Paras 9–13, 16].

Forum Conveniens – Discretionary Refusal to Entertain Writ – Doctrine permits Court to decline adjudication where lis has closer and more substantial nexus with another jurisdiction – Factors considered include location of parties, sponsoring authority, pending criminal cases, records and evidence – High Court of Calcutta or Rajasthan held to be more appropriate forums [Paras 6, 12–13, 17].

Preventive Detention – Sponsoring Authority and Predicate Offences – Relevance to Forum – Detention based on criminal cases registered in West Bengal – Sponsoring authority (NCB Kolkata) and relevant material located in West Bengal – Held: These constitute integral and dominant part of cause of action outweighing issuance of detention order from Delhi [Paras 2–3, 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Forum Conveniens Doctrine Reaffirmed – Court relied upon Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, Ambica Industries v. CCE, Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. SEBI – Principles reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and guided by convenience of parties and interests of justice [Paras 10–15].

Liberty to Approach Appropriate Forum – Dismissal on ground of forum conveniens does not bar petitioner from challenging detention order on merits before jurisdictional High Court – Liberty expressly reserved [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed on ground of forum conveniens – Delhi High Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach appropriate High Court/forum – Pending applications disposed of.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Second Bail Petition – Commercial Quantity – Delay in Trial – Article 21 of Constitution – Second petition filed under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in FIR under Sections 22(C) and 29 NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 576 capsules (354.96 grams) – Petitioner in custody since 12.07.2024 – Earlier bail petition dismissed as withdrawn – Maintainability of second bail petition upheld upon showing substantial change in circumstances – Challan presented but only 3 out of 18 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Held: Prolonged incarceration of more than 1 year 5 months without likelihood of early conclusion of trial constitutes substantial change in circumstances – Continued detention unjustified [Paras 3, 6, 6.3].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Rigours – Dilution on Ground of Prolonged Incarceration – State opposed bail citing bar under Section 37 NDPS Act – Court reiterated that statutory embargo cannot override fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Where delay in trial is not attributable to accused, rigours of Section 37 stand diluted – Conditional liberty can be granted notwithstanding commercial quantity – Reliance placed on Supreme Court and High Court precedents – Held: Statutory restrictions cannot be used to justify indefinite pre-trial detention [Paras 6.2].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Relevance – Custody certificate indicated involvement of petitioner in other FIRs – Held: Mere involvement in other cases not sufficient ground to deny bail when facts of present FIR justify grant of bail – Bail to be considered FIR-wise on its own merits [Para 6.1].

Right to Speedy Trial – Pre-trial Detention – NDPS Cases – Right to speedy trial is integral to Article 21 – Begins from date of arrest and continues through trial – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delays cannot justify prolonged incarceration – Pre-trial detention turning punitive held impermissible – Courts duty-bound to balance societal interest with individual liberty [Paras 6.2].

Conditions of Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions including non-tampering of evidence, regular appearance, non-commission of offence, deposit of passport, monthly affidavit of good conduct and liberty to State to seek cancellation on breach – Held: Conditions sufficient to safeguard prosecution interest [Para 7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions – Clarified that observations shall not be construed as expression on merits of the case [Paras 7–11].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof – Conviction Upheld – Accused, Village Man, alleged to have demanded and accepted ₹500 as illegal gratification for facilitating transfer of Jama rights and land revenue mutation – Prosecution relied on evidence of complainant (PW1), decoy witness (PW2) and trap proceedings – Phenolphthalein test positive and tainted currency recovered from accused – Held: Evidence of PW1 regarding demand and acceptance remained unshaken – Foundational facts proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act sustained [Paras 9–20].

Public Servant – Competence to Perform Official Act – Irrelevant for Bribery Offence – Defence contention that accused was not competent authority to measure land rejected – Held: Even if accused was not statutorily empowered, demand and acceptance of bribe for influencing official process attracts offences under PC Act – Complainant entitled to rely on representations made by public servant [Paras 14, 20].

Trap Case – Minor Contradictions – Effect – Alleged inconsistencies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding handing over of money and positioning during trap – Held: Minor discrepancies not affecting core prosecution case – No material contradiction to discredit demand and acceptance [Paras 6, 20].

Legal Principles – Demand as Sine Qua Non – Application of Neeraj Dutta Doctrine – Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance is essential for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Found that prosecution satisfied twin requirements through cogent oral and circumstantial evidence [Paras 17–19].

Sentence – Appellate Interference – Leniency – Considering facts and circumstances, sentence reduced to minimum permissible while maintaining conviction – Rigorous imprisonment reduced while fine maintained – Substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified – Bail cancelled – Accused directed to surrender to undergo modified sentence.

Civil Law – Ownership of Immovable Property – Licensee versus Owner – Respondent claimed exclusive ownership of suit property on basis of perpetual lease deed and conveyance deed – Appellant claimed ownership as HUF property and by oral partition – Allotment card of 1950 conferred only tenancy rights and not ownership – Proprietary rights accrued only on execution of perpetual lease deed in 1971 and conveyance deed in 1999 – Other legal heirs relinquished their shares in favour of respondent – Held: Respondent proved absolute ownership; appellant failed to establish HUF or joint family property [Paras 18–26, 41–45].

Hindu Law – Hindu Undivided Family – Burden of Proof – Mere existence of joint family or migration together does not raise presumption of HUF property – Burden lies on person asserting joint family property to prove nucleus and acquisition from joint family funds – Appellant led only bald averments without documentary evidence – Held: Suit property not proved to be HUF property [Paras 42–44].

Contract Law – License Agreement – Revocability – Agreement dated 24.09.1996 permitted appellant to occupy front portion of property during his lifetime – Agreement expressly recognised respondent as owner and excluded rights of appellant’s legal heirs – No interest in property created – Held: Agreement constituted a bare and revocable license under Section 52 of Easements Act [Paras 27–28, 52–59, 62–63].

Will – Nature and Effect – Will dated 24.09.1996 executed by respondent in favour of appellant admitted by appellant – Will revoked in 2009 – Will operates only after death of testator – Testator alive and beneficiary predeceased – Held: No rights accrued to appellant under Will; admission of Will amounts to admission of respondent’s ownership [Paras 29–31, 35–36, 50–51].

Admissions – Estoppel – Appellant and his son admitted execution and contents of Agreement and Will acknowledging respondent as owner – Earlier suit filed by appellant based on same documents claiming only possessory rights – Held: Appellant estopped from disputing respondent’s ownership [Paras 30–37].

Res Judicata – Amendment Application – Rejection of amendment application in earlier suit seeking declaration of ownership does not operate as res judicata – No adjudication on merits regarding ownership in earlier proceedings – Held: Trial Court erred in applying res judicata, but finding did not affect final conclusion on merits [Paras 38–40].

Limitation – Suit for Possession by Licensor – Cause of action arose upon cancellation of Will in 2009 and revocation of license by notice dated 03.05.2010 – Suit filed in 2010 within limitation – Article 59 and Section 65 of Limitation Act not applicable – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 65–69, 71].

Displaced Persons Law – Section 29 of 1954 Act – Applicability – Protection under Section 29 applies only to evacuee properties or notified classes – Suit property not evacuee property – Appellant neither tenant nor allottee under Act – Held: Section 29 inapplicable [Para 70].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Testimony of respondent’s siblings relied upon by appellant suffered from contradictions and admitted strained relations – Evidence required heightened scrutiny – Held: Trial Court rightly discarded their testimony [Paras 45–49].

Mesne Profits – Proof Required – Respondent sought enhancement of mesne profits beyond Rs. 5,000 per month awarded by Trial Court – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent of comparable properties – Held: Enhanced mesne profits cannot be granted without evidence; liberty granted to initiate separate proceedings [Paras 73–75].

Relief – Possession and Injunction – License validly revoked – Appellant in unauthorised occupation thereafter – Respondent entitled to possession, damages, interest and permanent injunction – Appeals dismissed [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 16.05.2013 affirmed – Respondent held absolute owner – Appellant directed to hand over possession – Decretal amount with interest to be released to respondent – Liberty granted to seek mesne profits separately.

Civil Law - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope – At stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11(d), Court must confine itself to averments in plaint and documents filed therewith – Defence or written statement cannot be looked into – If plaint discloses triable issues, rejection impermissible – Suit cannot be dismissed on disputed questions of fact [Paras 17-19].

Benami Act – Section 4(1) – Bar of Suit – Trial court rejected plaint holding suit barred as plaintiff alleged property in mother’s name to be benami – Held, whether property is benami and whether it falls within exceptions under Section 4(3) are questions of fact requiring evidence – Bar under Section 4(1) not attracted at threshold stage [Paras 26-29].

Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) – Purchase from Joint Family Funds – Plaintiff pleaded that property was purchased from HUF funds and income of partnership firm – If proved, transaction may fall within exception under Section 4(3) – Such plea raises triable issue and cannot be adjudicated summarily [Paras 24, 28-29].

Fiduciary Capacity – Mother Holding Property – Though mother not coparcener, fiduciary relationship between son and mother can attract exception under Section 4(3)(b) – Whether mother held property in fiduciary capacity for benefit of plaintiff is matter for evidence – Suit not ex facie barred [Paras 29].

Burden of Proof – Benami Nature – Burden lies on person asserting benami transaction – Determination depends on source of funds, relationship of parties, conduct and surrounding circumstances – Cannot be decided without trial [Paras 21, 25, 27].

Error by Trial Court – Material Illegality – Trial court erred in concluding suit barred merely on plaint averment of benami – Failed to consider exceptions under Section 4(3) – Order held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025 set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to decide suit within six months – Parties to bear their own costs.

Local Self-Government – Removal of Elected Municipal President – Section 48(2-A), U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 – Meaning of “such inquiry as it may consider necessary” – Full-fledged inquiry mandatory – Petitioner, elected President of Nagar Palika Parishad, removed on allegations of corruption, favouritism in tenders and misuse of municipal funds – Removal order based on preliminary inquiry reports and show-cause proceedings – No formal charge-sheet framed – No Inquiry Officer appointed – No oral evidence recorded – No opportunity of cross-examination afforded – Preliminary inquiry reports relied upon without associating petitioner – Held: Once charges are denied and explanation is found unsatisfactory, State Government is mandatorily required to conduct a full-fledged inquiry before removal of an elected representative – Removal without such inquiry violates Section 48(2-A) and principles of natural justice – Impugned order quashed with liberty to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law [Paras 11–23].

Elected Representative – Higher Constitutional Pedestal – Comparison with Government Servant – Elected President of Municipality stands on a higher footing than a government servant – If even a temporary government employee cannot be removed without full-fledged inquiry, removal of an elected representative without such inquiry is impermissible – Removal curtails statutory right of office-bearer and democratic right of constituency – Strict adherence to statutory procedure essential [Paras 13, 20].

Inquiry – Preliminary vs. Regular Inquiry – Evidentiary Value – Preliminary inquiry meant only to form prima facie opinion – Evidence recorded therein cannot be relied upon for final punishment – Reliance on preliminary reports without examination of witnesses in presence of delinquent and without cross-examination is illegal – Documents do not prove themselves and must be proved through competent witnesses [Paras 15, 16, 21].

Natural Justice – Supply of Inquiry Material – Right to Defence – Non-supply of relied-upon material including inquiry reports and comments vitiates proceedings – Right to receive inquiry report is part of reasonable opportunity of defence – Prejudice need not be separately proved where mandatory procedural safeguards are breached [Paras 15, 21].

Administrative Law – Quasi-Judicial Power – Recording of Reasons – Order of removal must record clear reasons based on legally admissible evidence – Mere reference to allegations and replies without discussion of evidence reflects non-application of mind – Quasi-judicial orders affecting elected office must demonstrate fairness, objectivity and strict compliance with law [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 29.10.2025 removing petitioner from office quashed – Respondents directed to conduct a full-fledged inquiry strictly in accordance with Section 48(2-A) of the Act, 1916 and principles of natural justice – Consequential relief granted [Para 23–24].