Civil Writ - Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – DRT Jurisdiction – Recovery Officer imposed conditions requiring ₹50 crores deposit/surety for permitting petitioner to travel to USA – Held: DRT has no statutory power to restrain or condition foreign travel; such power must arise from “enacted law” – No such law exists in RDDBFI Act or Rules – Conditions violate petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) & 21; quashed [Paras 6–10, 12]

Fundamental Rights – Restriction Only by Law – Relying on Satwant Singh Sawhney and Maneka Gandhi – “Personal liberty” includes the right to travel abroad – Deprivation permissible only by procedure established by law – DRT being a creature of statute cannot assume powers not expressly granted – No provision authorising travel restriction or conditional travel [Paras 6–10]

Statutory Interpretation – RDDBFI Act – No Power to Restrict Travel – Section 19(25) and Rule 18 cannot be used to create substantive powers not provided in statute – DRT’s authority limited to recovery process; borrower’s physical presence not ordinarily required – Imposing travel restrictions or conditions ultra vires [Paras 7–10]

Alternate Remedy – Writ Maintainable – Challenge concerns violation of fundamental rights – Existence of appellate remedy under the Act does not bar writ – High Court can examine legality of DRT Recovery Officer’s order imposing unconstitutional conditions [Para 11]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Condition No. (ii) requiring ₹50 crores deposit/surety before travel quashed as ultra vires, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 19 and 21 – Petitioner’s right to travel abroad restored [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Unlawful Assembly – Assault – Cross-FIR – Evidence of complainant and injured witnesses found to be partisan, contradictory, and inconsistent with their police statements which admitted mutual fight and injuries on opposite side – Suppression of fatal injuries on accused’s father (deceased Ganpatsinh) in cross-case held fatal – Trial court’s view held a “possible view” warranting no interference [Paras 6–12, 15].

Witness Credibility – Interested/Injured Witnesses – PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 admitted during cross-examination that police statements recorded a mutual fight and blows inflicted by prosecution side – Court notes material improvements, suppression of crucial facts, inconsistency regarding weapon use (bhala vs. chappu), and contradictions with Investigating Officer (PW-9) – Held: Testimony unreliable and unsafe for conviction in absence of independent corroboration [Paras 7–10].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Medical certificates (Exhs. 32–37, 41, 43) show only simple abrasions and lacerated wounds – No injury consistent with alleged knife blow to chest – Absence of grievous injuries inconsistent with prosecution’s claim of severe attack with lethal weapons – Held: Medical evidence does not support ocular version [Paras 8–10].

Forensic Evidence – Weapon Recovery – FSL Report (Exh. 66) inconclusive – No tamancha recovered to support allegation under Section 506(2) IPC – Panchnama witnesses formal; no link between recovered weapons and injuries – Held: Recovery does not corroborate prosecution case [Paras 8–10].

Independent Witnesses – Non-examination – Incident occurred in village with 60–70 houses; FIR itself mentions interveners (Somabhai Fulabhai, Mangal @ Yogibhai, etc.) – None examined – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses severely undermines prosecution case, especially in cross-case scenario [Paras 7–10].

Cross-Cases – Mutual Fight – Complainant and injured witnesses were themselves accused in cross-FIR (C.R. I-170/1993) for death of accused’s father – Suppression of mutual injuries and one-sided narration held deliberate and fatal to prosecution – Strong motive to falsely implicate accused established – Benefit of doubt justified [Paras 7–12].

Appellate Interference – Principles – Applying Chandrappa principles and Supreme Court rulings in Rajesh Prasad (2022) 3 SCC 471 and H.D. Sundara (2023) 9 SCC 581 – Court reiterates double presumption of innocence and limits on interference in acquittal appeals – Trial court’s view is a plausible, legally sustainable view – No ground to reverse acquittal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused upheld – Records and proceedings to be remitted [Paras 15].

Family Law - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 16 – Presumption of Valid Adoption – Registered adoption deed dated 08.02.1982 executed in favour of petitioner duly proved by natural mother, marginal witnesses and priest – Authorities below ignored statutory presumption under Section 16 – Held: Once a registered adoption deed signed by giver and taker is produced, Court shall presume valid adoption unless disproved in independent proceedings [Paras 12, 19–21].

Mutation Proceedings – Revenue Authorities – Limits of Jurisdiction – Mutation allowed by Naib Tehsildar after appreciating oral and documentary evidence – Appellate and revisional authorities reversed mutation by branding adoption deed as “suspicious” without legal basis – Held: Revenue authorities cannot sit in judgment over validity of registered adoption deed without it being annulled by competent civil court [Paras 7–9, 16–18].

Registered Adoption Deed – Burden of Proof – Heavy initial burden lies on propounder of adoption, but once a registered adoption deed is produced and proved, onus shifts to challenger – Respondents failed to initiate independent proceedings to disprove adoption – Adverse inference drawn by appellate and revisional authorities held perverse [Paras 13, 21–24].

Reasons – Recording of – Mandatory – Appellate and revisional orders recorded mere suspicion without assigning reasons – Held: Reasons are the heartbeat of a judicial/quasi-judicial decision – Absence of reasons renders the orders arbitrary, lifeless and unsustainable [Paras 11, 18, 26–27].

Evidence – Appreciation – Oral evidence of natural mother, witnesses and priest regarding giving and taking ceremony remained unrebutted – Minor contradictions in witness statements cannot justify discarding adoption deed – Adoption ceremony of giving and taking (datta homam) proved [Paras 6, 22, 27].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Mutation Proceedings – Objection that mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature rejected – Writ petition challenged appellate and revisional orders passed in disregard of settled law – Held: Writ maintainable when orders suffer from perversity and patent illegality [Paras 14–15, 25–26].

Decision: Impugned orders dated 08.12.1996 passed by Commissioner and 08.05.2000 passed by appellate authority quashed – Registered adoption deed upheld – Mutation order dated 18.08.1992 restored – Writ petition allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 28–29].

Civil Law – Revenue Proceedings – Timely Disposal – Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code – Petitioner sought direction for early disposal of partition suit pending since 2022 – Held: Rule 109(10) mandates an endeavour to decide such suits within six months. The Presiding Officer is directed to decide the case within six months. [Para 9]

Legal Ethics – Lawyers' Strike – Contempt of Court – Held: Continuous strikes by Bar Associations causing delay in judicial proceedings affect the public, especially poor litigants. If a case is adjourned due to a strike, the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association will be liable for contempt of Court for violating the directions in Daya Shankar v. State of U.P.. Litigants are at liberty to file contempt proceedings against such office bearers. [Para 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 11]

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Review – Maintainability of Review – Earlier SLPs filed by appellants dismissed for non-prosecution – Held: Dismissal of SLPs for default does not bar maintainability of review petition – Doctrine of merger does not apply to non-speaking dismissal orders – Review petitions held to be maintainable under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 18-19].

Limitation – Delay of Over 12 Years – Condonation – Review petitions filed with delay ranging from 4557 to 4586 days – Delay attributed to personal hardships and death of appellant Harke Ram – Held: Delay condoned in view of principles laid down in Katiji, Dhiraj Singh, Huchanagouda and Suresh Kumar cases – Denial of enhanced compensation would violate equity and parity – Interest on enhanced compensation denied for period of delay as equitable balance [Paras 20-24].

Compensation – Principle of Parity – Enhanced compensation already granted by Supreme Court in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana to similarly situated landowners for same acquisition – Appellants’ lands part of same notification and award – Held: Appellants entitled to same enhancement of ₹20,00,000/- per acre as per Rajender Singh judgment – No justification to deny benefit merely due to procedural delay when entitlement otherwise established [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Review petitions allowed – Delay in filing condoned subject to denial of interest for delayed period – Applicants entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹20,00,000/- per acre in line with Supreme Court judgment in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana – Statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act granted, excluding interest for delayed period – Appeals disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Remand Extension – Illegality – Petitioners were remanded in NDPS case and their remand was extended to 300 days by Special Judge – Accused not produced physically or virtually before court on date of extension – Held: Mandatory procedural safeguard violated – Such failure is not a mere irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21 of the Constitution – Order extending remand set aside – Petitioners entitled to default bail [Paras 5–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Failure to secure accused’s presence during remand extension hearing deprives them of fair procedure – Reference made to SC judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 973 – Held: Extension of time without informing or producing the accused nullifies their right to seek default bail and infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 6–8].

Bail – Conditions for Release – Petitioners granted bail in view of illegal remand – Conditions imposed include regular police attendance, restriction on travel, non-tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of passports – Held: Petitioners shall comply with all directions until cognizance is taken [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Cases allowed – Impugned remand extension order dated 13.11.2025 set aside – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 granted bail on specified conditions – Trial court failed to follow due process by not producing or informing accused during remand extension hearing – No costs.

Petroleum Dealership – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Land Ownership – Lease Deed Requirement – IOCL Brochure Clause 4(vi)(a) mandates that on the date of application, lease deed must be executed by all co-owners; failure renders application invalid – Petitioner submitted lease from only one co-sharer and relied on preliminary decree of partition – Held: Preliminary decree is insufficient; only final decree separating shares by metes and bounds establishes exclusive title – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 8–14, 20]

Partition of Land – Preliminary vs. Final Decree – Under Sections 116–117 of U.P. Revenue Code and Rules 108–109, preliminary decree merely declares shares; final decree alone identifies exact land allotted to each co-sharer – At stage of preliminary decree location of allotted land may change – Applicant must furnish final decree if relying on partition in joint property – Petitioner lacked final decree on date of application [Paras 12–14]

Administrative Law – Commercial Decision of IOCL – Judicial Review – Selection for retail outlet dealership is contractual and commercial – Writ Court will not interfere unless action is arbitrary or irrational – IOCL acted as per Brochure; decision neither arbitrary nor unreasonable – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 17, 20–21]

Precedents – Identical Issues – Earlier judgments in Rahul Singh (Writ C 7354/2024, decided 06.03.2024) and Amarjeet (Writ C 11586/2024, decided 06.05.2024) applied – Both held that in joint ownership cases absence of lease from all co-owners on date of application is fatal – Applied squarely to present case [Paras 15–19]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No infirmity in IOCL’s rejection order; no relief granted – No order as to costs [Paras 20–21].

Family Law – Custody and Visitation – Maintainability of Injunction Suit by One Parent Against the Other – Family Court Suit – Respondent-mother filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-father from contacting the child or school staff – Petitioner-father filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint – Family Court dismissed the application – High Court held that such a suit, though labeled as permanent injunction, essentially seeks custody-related reliefs which fall within Family Court jurisdiction under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Mere use of “injunction” terminology does not oust Family Court’s jurisdiction [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Plaintiff’s pleadings alone to be considered – Defence or merits not to be weighed – High Court reiterated that so long as the plaint discloses a cause of action and falls within court jurisdiction, rejection under Order VII Rule 11 not warranted – Held: Family Court rightly refused to reject plaint [Paras 12–14].

Jurisdiction – Family Court – Custody and Visitation Rights – Even if framed as civil suit for injunction, underlying dispute concerns parental rights and child welfare – Such matters fall squarely within jurisdiction of Family Court under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Held: Proper remedy is for father to seek visitation under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act or Guardians and Wards Act, not by resisting injunction suit as non-maintainable [Paras 11, 15–18].

Pleadings – Cause of Action – Sufficiency – Court reiterated that only averments in the plaint are relevant for examining maintainability under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff alleged threats, school disruption, and psychological impact on minor – These constitute cause of action for seeking relief – Held: Contentions of petitioner on truth or sufficiency of those facts not relevant at this stage [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – No interference with Family Court’s order – Petitioner permitted to pursue appropriate remedies under law for visitation or custody.

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Interference – Award upholding investor’s claim for indemnity from CDSL under Section 16 of Depositories Act – Tribunal held DP (BRH) acted negligently and fraudulently while transferring and pledging investor’s shares – Court held findings plausible, reasoned, and not perverse – Petition under Section 34 dismissed [Paras 1, 75–78].

Depository Liability – Negligence by DP – BRH, acting as DP of CDSL, fraudulently transferred investor’s shares using Power of Attorney and pledged them to HDFC Bank – Held: Since BRH acted at least partly as DP, CDSL liable to indemnify under Section 16 – CDSL cannot escape liability by attributing acts solely to role of broker [Paras 20–24, 36–47].

Power of Attorney Misuse – Composite Fraud – No underlying trades justified share transfers – Transfers effected solely to engineer fraudulent pledge – Tribunal found Petitioner liable for permitting DP to transfer and pledge shares of 9493 clients – Held: Entire transaction was composite fraud facilitated by CDSL’s DP, attracting vicarious liability [Paras 40–44, 48–50].

Investor Protection – SEBI Regulatory Framework – SEBI Circulars (pre- and post-incident) required adequate monitoring, early warning mechanisms, and supervisory oversight – CDSL failed to prevent DP’s misuse of POA – Court held that investor compensation is independent of specific regulatory violations; Section 16 creates strict liability on depository for DP’s negligent acts [Paras 53–62].

SEBI Circular of 25.07.2023 – No Bar to Depository’s Liability – Circular cannot override statutory liability under Section 16 – Tribunal correctly held that responsibility for DP’s misconduct lies with CDSL and not with NSE – Attempt to shift burden to NSE rejected [Paras 63–70].

Equity Jurisdiction – Tribunal Not Acting as Amiable Compositeur – Though Tribunal used terms like ‘ends of justice’, award was based on findings of statutory negligence – Tribunal did not invoke equity jurisdiction under Section 28(2) of Arbitration Act – No illegality found [Paras 73–74].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award upheld – CDSL held liable to indemnify Respondent No.1 for value of lost shares (Rs. 86,02,768/-) – No costs awarded – Interim Application also disposed of [Paras 75–79].