Family Law - Custody of Minor – Section 6, 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act - Paramountcy of Welfare – Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act – Custody Restored to Mother – In a dispute concerning custody of a 9-year-old minor, despite the personal law favouring custody to the father after seven years, the Court applied the welfare principle under Section 17 of the Act – Considered that the minor had deep emotional attachment with the mother and expressed refusal to reside with father – Held: The best interest of the child, including mental well-being and comfort, outweighed personal law entitlement – Custody granted to the mother with limited visitation rights to father [Paras 25-31].

Personal Law vs Welfare Principle – Muslim Law on Hizanat – Personal Law Not Conclusive – While acknowledging Muslim law provisions wherein the father gets custody after the age of seven, the Court clarified that in cases where the child’s welfare is at stake, personal law cannot supersede the paramount consideration of welfare under Section 17 – Interaction with the child and evidence indicated welfare lies with the mother – Custody continued with mother despite father's legal claim under personal law [Paras 19-21, 28].

Visitation Rights – Balanced Visitation Schedule to Safeguard Father’s Rights – The Court balanced the father’s rights by granting reasonable visitation – Father entitled to spend seven days with child during long vacations and monthly visits under supervision – This ensured continued parental contact without disrupting child’s comfort zone [Paras 29-30].

Adverse Conduct of Mother – Non-Compliance with Court Orders – Contempt Proceedings Maintained Separately – Despite the mother’s defiance of interim court orders, the Court held that custody must be determined on welfare considerations, not punitive grounds – Contempt petition directed to be considered independently [Paras 4, 14, 28].

Father’s Financial and Domestic Circumstances – Lack of Proof of Better Upbringing Environment – The father failed to establish superior financial capacity or supportive domestic arrangements – Absence of female family members noted as a crucial factor in denying custody – Welfare conditions were found to be more conducive with the mother [Paras 25, 31].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Custody with Mother – Limited Visitation to Father – The impugned judgment granting custody to father was set aside – Custody retained by mother with structured visitation rights to the father – Welfare of the minor took precedence over personal law mandates [Paras 31].

Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act – Conscious Possession Not Established – Bail Granted – The High Court allowed bail to the petitioner who was arrested after collecting a courier parcel containing 100 LSD blots, observing absence of evidence proving conscious possession and involvement in narcotics trafficking – Held: In absence of incriminating digital, financial, or forensic links, and considering inconsistencies in the prosecution case, twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act were satisfied; bail granted [Paras 1-18].

Conscious Possession – Mere Custody Not Sufficient – Knowledge of Contraband Not Proved – The Court noted petitioner was neither consignee nor sender, parcel was addressed to third party, and petitioner consistently claimed he was asked by a neighbour to collect the parcel – Held: Without proof of knowledge or dominion over contraband, conscious possession not established [Paras 5-13].

Confessional Statement under Section 67 – No Recovery Pursuant to Disclosure – Inadmissible without Corroboration – The Court held confessional statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is insufficient for conviction without substantive corroboration – Held: No recovery from petitioner pursuant to statement; reliance solely on Section 67 impermissible [Paras 10, 13].

Statutory Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act – Rebuttable Where Conscious Possession Lacking – The Court held presumption of culpability under Section 54 not attracted in absence of conscious possession – Held: Prosecution failed to establish knowledge of contents, presumption rebutted [Paras 5-12].

Differential Role Compared to Co-Accused – No Connection with Drug Syndicate – Bail Justified – The Court differentiated petitioner’s limited role of collecting one parcel from active drug dealers from whom large quantities were recovered – Held: No link with wider drug syndicate established; bail warranted [Paras 6-9].

Satisfaction of Twin Conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act – No Likelihood of Re-Offending – Bail Granted – The Court noted petitioner had no criminal antecedents, cooperated with investigation, remained in custody for two years, and showed good conduct in jail – Held: Twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied; bail granted with conditions [Paras 14-18].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner Released on Bail – Court directed petitioner’s release on furnishing personal bond and surety with conditions including non-tampering with evidence, appearance before court, and residence verification [Paras 15-18].

Civil Writ – Mandamus - Para-athlete Entitlement – Cash Award Under Government Orders – Rightfully Due Benefits Denied – The petitioner, a double upper limb amputee, represented India in various international para-swimming championships winning medals – Despite clear eligibility under GO dated 30.11.2013, the State failed to disburse ₹6,00,000/- – Held: The petitioner is entitled to the full amount, and short payment by the State is illegal and unjustified [Paras 3–10].

Disability Rights – Arbitrariness and Bureaucratic Apathy – Violation of Dignity and Equality – The State’s refusal to honour a decorated disabled sportsperson’s achievements despite policy mandates amounts to inhumane and arbitrary treatment – Held: State actions violate the letter and spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional equality guarantees [Paras 4, 7, 12–14].

Association Suspension – Not a Valid Ground to Deny Benefits – Government Plea Rejected – The State argued petitioner’s association was suspended, hence full benefit could not be paid – Held: Cash awards are based on athlete’s performance, not association status – State cannot hide behind technicalities to deny rights [Para 11].

State’s Conduct – Model Litigant Principle – Cost Imposed on Officers Personally – For delay and denial of benefits, Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000/- to be paid personally by erring government officials – Held: The State must act fairly and responsibly, particularly toward disabled citizens who achieve international glory [Paras 14–16].

Final Relief – Mandamus Issued – Amount Ordered to Be Paid With Penalty for Delay – Writ Petition Allowed – State directed to pay ₹1,26,000/- within 2 weeks, failing which ₹1,000/- per day to be paid until compliance – Officials liable for costs from personal funds [Para 17].

Dishonour of Cheque – Lack of Authorization – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act Set Aside – The accused issued a cheque in settlement of a failed property transaction where consideration was paid jointly by the complainant and another individual – The accused challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant alone could not prosecute without proper authorization – Held: As per established legal position, in cases where liability is jointly owed, a solitary payee must have authorization to prosecute under Section 138 – As the authorization was not marked in evidence, conviction not sustainable – Matter remanded to trial court with liberty to both parties to adduce additional evidence [Paras 5-7].

Joint Payee Complaint – Legal Requirement of Authorization – Remand Ordered – The Court held that a cheque can be issued in the name of a single person for discharge of joint liability provided there is authorization by other parties – Absence of valid proof of such authorization renders prosecution defective – Remand permitted to allow parties to produce relevant authorizations or evidence [Paras 6-7].

Interim Relief – Release from Custody – Considering Accused Undergoing Default Sentence – Pending Re-trial – The Court directed immediate release of the petitioner from custody as he was serving default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation – Accused ordered to be released unless required in any other case [Para 7].

Limited Scope of Remand – No De Novo Trial Required – Additional Evidence Permitted – The Court clarified that while remanding, the trial court need not conduct a full retrial but should confine proceedings to permitting both sides to adduce further evidence on authorization before concluding the matter afresh [Para 7].

Civil Law  – Declaration and Injunction Suit – Title not established – Appeal dismissed – The plaintiff-appellant sought a declaration claiming ownership over 5 kanals of land on the basis of a sale deed executed by her husband Gurlal Singh, but the lower courts dismissed the suit holding that Gurlal Singh’s ownership was limited to 1/4th share and there was no evidence of ownership of 3/4th share as mentioned in the sale deed – The High Court upheld the concurrent findings observing that execution of a sale deed without lawful title cannot confer ownership – Held: No substantial question of law arises, second appeal dismissed [Paras 2-10].

Sale Beyond Ownership – Effect of Invalid Title – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a vendor cannot sell more than his ownership share – Jamabandi entries recorded only 1/4th share of Gurlal Singh while the sale deed wrongly mentioned 3/4th share – Held: Execution of sale deed by a person without title does not vest ownership rights in vendee [Paras 7-9].

No Proof of Excess Sale by Defendants – Courts’ Findings Upheld – The appellant failed to prove that defendants/respondents had sold land in excess of their share – The courts below rightly relied on revenue records showing that the land sold by respondents was within their recorded share – Held: No illegality in the sale deed executed by respondents, suit rightly dismissed [Paras 9].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal dismissed – The Court found no perversity or misapplication of law in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial and First Appellate Courts – Held: In the absence of any substantial question of law, second appeal not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Para 10].

Decision of the Case – Appeal dismissed – The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and injunction are affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 10].

Service Law - Retrenched Employees – Absorption under Rules of 1991 – Denied Due to Repeal – Claims Dismissed – Petitioners, ex-employees of U.P. Cement Corporation, claimed right to absorption citing 1991 Rules and Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunil Kumar Verma – Held: The 1991 Rules were rescinded by 2003 Rules and deemed rescinded retrospectively by Act of 2009 from 09.05.1991; petitioners’ claim extinguished as they were neither absorbed before 08.04.2003 nor party in prior litigation – Petitions dismissed [Paras 1-24].

Applicability of Supreme Court Judgment – Sunil Kumar Verma Judgment Not in Rem – Petitioners Not Entitled to Parity – Held: Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunil Kumar Verma restricted to appellants therein; no direction for general application to all similarly situated retrenched employees; petitioners were fence-sitters and failed to avail remedies in time [Paras 5, 15-18].

Rescission Act, 2009 – Effect of Section 3 – Extinguishment of Absorption Rights – Court held Act of 2009 rescinded 1991 Rules ab initio with saving only for those absorbed before 08.04.2003 – Petitioners’ rights extinguished, no further claim survives, except age relaxation for direct recruitment on Group C & D posts [Paras 8, 19-22].

Distinction from Other Judgments – Shiv Jag Sharma Case Not Applicable – Held: Case of Shiv Jag Sharma pertained to absorbed employees claiming pension, not unabsorbed retrenched employees; not applicable to present petitioners [Para 20].

Binding Precedent – Applicability of Division Bench Judgment – Court followed binding Division Bench decision in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Srivastava, 2019:AHC:98463-DB, which rejected similar claims of unabsorbed retrenched employees of U.P. Cement Corporation after considering Sunil Kumar Verma judgment [Paras 11, 19].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Court declined interference, citing long unexplained delay, non-participation in previous litigation, and statutory bar under Act of 2009 – All writ petitions dismissed without relief [Paras 23-24].

Land Acquisition – Repeated Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings – Section 4(1), Section 6(1), and Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act – Writ Petition Dismissed with Exemplary Costs – The petitioners, legal representatives of original grantees, challenged the acquisition of 2 acres and 20 guntas of land granted in 1979, citing a purported Section 48(1) notification issued in 1993 – The acquisition process had concluded in 1987 with compensation paid, possession taken, and multiple prior petitions dismissed, including by Division Bench and Supreme Court – Held: The current petition, the ninth in succession, amounts to abuse of process of law, is barred by constructive res judicata, and is dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000/- [Paras 1-29].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioners’ Non-disclosure of Eight Prior Litigations – Exemplary Costs Imposed – The petitioners suppressed the history of eight previous unsuccessful litigations, thereby misleading the Court to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction – Held: Approach with unclean hands, suppression of material facts, and vexatious relitigation renders the petition liable for dismissal with exemplary costs to discourage unscrupulous litigants [Paras 23-25].

Constructive Res Judicata – Application of Henderson Principle – Bar on Fresh Plea after Prior Adjudications – Section 11 Explanation IV of CPC – The Court applied the doctrine of constructive res judicata and the Henderson principle to reject the petitioners' belated plea based on a 1993 notification that could and ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings – Held: Re-litigation on same cause of action with new grounds after multiple rounds of adjudication is impermissible [Paras 26-27].

Judicial Policy – Finality of Litigation – Public Policy Against Multiplicity of Proceedings – The Court emphasized that litigation must conclude and cannot be re-opened indefinitely by introducing new grounds – Held: The petitioners’ conduct undermines judicial finality, causes harassment, and wastes judicial resources, warranting dismissal with costs to uphold sanctity of judicial process [Paras 24, 27, 28].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed with Exemplary Costs – ₹10,00,000/- directed to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from receipt of the order to deter abuse of judicial process [Para 29].

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Alternate Remedy – Election Dispute – Appeal Lies under Section 38(4) – The petitioner challenged the maintainability of an election petition filed with delay, arguing that the ground of illness was fabricated – The High Court held that the proper remedy was to file an appeal before the District Judge as per Section 38(4) of the Act – Held: Writ petition not maintainable when statutory appellate remedy exists [Paras 3-6].

Statutory Interpretation – Meaning of “All Orders” under Section 38(3) – Includes Interlocutory Orders – The court interpreted the phrase “all orders” to include interlocutory orders, contrary to earlier rulings that restricted appeals to only final orders – Held: Appeal lies even against interlocutory orders under Section 38(4) [Paras 6.3-6.5].

Per Incuriam – Prior Decisions Overruled – Niranjan Sahu and Sasmita Pradhan Cases Held Not Binding – The Court held that prior decisions restricting appeal to final orders only were rendered without considering binding precedents and statutory provisions – Held: These decisions are per incuriam and not binding; correct law stated in Anirudha Jena [Paras 5.1, 6.6].

Doctrine of Precedent – Role of Legislative Intent – Contextual and Holistic Interpretation Mandated – The Court stressed that statutory interpretation must align with legislative intent and context, rejecting isolated or narrow readings of statutory phrases like “all orders” [Paras 5.6-5.10].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty to File Statutory Appeal – The Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, granting liberty to file an appeal before the District Judge within two weeks – No decision made on merits [Paras 6.7-6.9].

Criminal Law  – Abetment of Suicide – Appeal Against Conviction - Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Acquittal Granted – Appellant was convicted for cruelty and abetment to suicide of his wife based on stale allegations and letters referring to incidents from 1999–2000 – Suicide occurred in 2005 – Court held that the time gap negated any proximate cause or intention required under Section 306 – Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 18-24, 30-34].

Legal Presumption – Section 113A Evidence Act Inapplicable – No Reverse Burden – Since suicide occurred over seven years after marriage, the statutory presumption under Section 113A did not apply – Burden remained on prosecution to prove mens rea and abetment – Held: Mere harassment or vague allegations without proximity to suicide do not suffice [Paras 19, 30].

Testimony of Child Witness – Held Unreliable – Testimony of daughter (PW21) alleged daily quarrels – But inconsistencies in cross-examination and evidence of tutoring reduced credibility – Court noted her mother’s erratic behaviour and no corroboration from early investigation records [Para 28].

Section 106 Evidence Act – No Adverse Inference – Appellant was not present at home at the time of suicide – Prosecution failed to rebut alibi – Section 106 not attracted in absence of exclusive knowledge or possession of facts [Para 31].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – CRA-S-2271-SB-2008 allowed – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Connected revision and appeal for sentence enhancement disposed as infructuous [Paras 34-36].