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]

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].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Unsecured Loan – Identity – Creditworthiness – Genuineness – Loan of ₹10 crore received through banking channels from Shashi Foods confirmed by lender in statement during survey and in reply to notice u/s 133(6) – AO doubted creditworthiness based on enquiries into lender’s creditors and allegation of bogus purchases – CIT(A) and ITAT held enquiry into “source of source” impermissible for AY 2014-15 – Held: Assessee discharged initial onus; Revenue failed to rebut evidences; addition u/s 68 unsustainable [Paras 30–38, 41–44].

Source of Source – Amendment by Finance Act 2022 – Prospective – Assessment Year 2014-15 – Court holds that requirement to prove source of source applies only post-amendment – For pre-amendment years, assessee is not required to prove genuineness of lender’s creditors or upstream funds – AO’s reliance on creditors’ non-availability irrelevant [Paras 37, 40, 42, 43].

Search Assessment – Section 153A – Incriminating Material – Revenue argued that addition valid in light of Abhisar Buildwell (SC) – Court notes AO did not rely on any incriminating material for making addition – ITAT rightly deleted addition – On merits also Revenue’s case fails [Para 47].

Burden of Proof – Assessee discharged burden by furnishing lender’s confirmations, ITRs, bank statements, audited accounts, and evidence of repayment with interest – Payment and repayment through banking channels establishes genuineness – AO's suspicion based on unrelated enquiries into lender's purchases and creditors held conjectural [Paras 35–36, 41–44].

Search Enquiries into Lender – Non-availability of lender’s creditors at address – Bills allegedly bogus – Held: These matters pertain to lender’s assessment and cannot be used to draw adverse inference against borrower – AO travelled beyond scope of Section 68 for relevant year [Paras 31–33, 37–38].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Both substantial questions of law answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue – Deletion of addition of ₹10 crore loan and interest upheld [Paras 48–49].

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.

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.

SARFAESI Act – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Free Consent – Coercion & Misrepresentation – DRT’s Limited Jurisdiction – Bar under Section 34 SARFAESI not attracted – Rejection of plaint set aside – Suit restored [Paras 16–27].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Averments in plaint alone to be considered – Failure to lodge FIR or criminal complaint cannot justify rejection – Allegations of coercion, threats and misrepresentation must be tested at trial – Trial court erred in relying on absence of criminal proceedings to reject plaint [Paras 16–18].

Contract Law – Free Consent – Coercion – Undue Influence – Plea strikes at validity of sale deed – Assertions of threats to family members and coercive execution, if proved, render contract void – Such questions cannot be adjudicated at Order VII Rule 11 stage [Paras 17–18, 22].

Pleading Fraud – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Non-elaborate particulars not fatal – Complaint is of coercion and misrepresentation coupled with fraud – Deficiency curable by amendment or during evidence – Not a ground for rejection at threshold [Para 19].

Evidence Act – Sections 91, 92 – Bar on oral evidence arises only at evidentiary stage – Cannot be invoked to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plea of non-payment of consideration coupled with coercion survives [Paras 21–22].

Sale Deed – Non-payment of consideration – Not by itself a ground for cancellation – But where execution alleged to be involuntary and induced by coercion, misrepresentation and threats, plaint discloses cause of action – Cannot be rejected summarily [Paras 22–23].

SARFAESI Act – Section 34 – Bar not applicable – Suit seeks cancellation of a registered sale deed, a relief beyond the jurisdiction of DRT – DRT cannot cancel registered conveyances – Supreme Court decision in Prabha Jain applied – Civil court jurisdiction preserved [Paras 24–25].

Civil Procedure – Threshold Scrutiny – Even remote chances of success cannot be grounds for rejection – Only when plaint is barred on its face can Order VII Rule 11 be invoked – Present plaint discloses cause of action and is not barred by law [Paras 23, 26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting plaint set aside – Suit restored – Trial court to proceed uninfluenced by observations in appellate judgment [Paras 27–30].

Service Law – Regularization – Seniority – Discriminatory denial of parity with juniors – Committee’s earlier favourable recommendation ignored without reason – Second meeting convened without justification – State’s contradictory stand regarding appointment of private respondents – Condition denying seniority struck down earlier – Held: Action arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 & 16; petitioner entitled to regularization benefits at par with juniors [Paras 6–11].

Administrative Law – Committee Proceedings – Once a committee resolves an issue by majority, recall of meeting without reason impermissible – Subsequent minutes authored individually but shown as collective decision – Such colourable exercise of power vitiated – Impugned order quashed [Paras 8–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality before law – State action must be reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory – Reliance placed on Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721 – State’s inconsistent justification and selective denial of benefits held unconstitutional [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 30.09.2015 quashed – Authorities directed to grant regularization and consequential benefits to the petitioner at par with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 [Para 11–12].

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]

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.