Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Minor Penalty – Scope of Judicial Interference – Lecturer subjected to disciplinary action for manipulation of attendance register, insubordination and unauthorised leave – Enquiry conducted and punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect imposed – Appeal dismissed by University Appellate Tribunal – Revision under Section 60(9) Kerala University Act – Held: Interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only if proceedings are vitiated by perversity, illegality, material irregularity or violation of natural justice – Revisional court will not reappreciate evidence or act as appellate authority – Tribunal’s findings based on evidence and proper appreciation of materials – No ground for interference [Paras 5, 9].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Cross-examination – Petitioner contended that enquiry violated principles of natural justice and Kerala University First Statutes – Tribunal found that adequate opportunities were repeatedly granted and petitioner failed to avail them – Statute 72 does not contemplate a detailed enquiry for minor penalty – Yet enquiry was conducted – Held: Sufficient opportunity afforded – Enquiry not vitiated merely because delinquent failed to participate effectively – No denial of natural justice established [Paras 4, 8].

Charges in Disciplinary Enquiry – Vagueness – Consolidated memo containing nine charges based on earlier memos – Tribunal found that petitioner clearly understood allegations and submitted explanations – Held: Charges not vague – Allegation of vagueness rejected [Paras 4, 8].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Section 60(9), Kerala University Act – High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent reiterating restraint in judicial review of departmental enquiries – Tribunal’s decision neither perverse nor illegal – Revision dismissed [Paras 5, 9].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Judgment dated 14.10.2004 of the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1 of 2004 upheld [Final Order].

Civil Writ - Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Revision Dismissed for Non-Appearance – Impugned order passed by Additional Commissioner dismissing OSS Case without hearing the petitioner – Petitioner contended absence of notice and denial of opportunity – Held: Order passed without hearing violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained [Paras 3-4].

Judicial Duty – Disposal on Merits – Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings – Court reiterated that a matter should ordinarily be decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties – Emphasised that courts should not permit technicalities to defeat substantial justice [Paras 4-5].

Substantial Justice – Technicalities – Preference – When technical considerations are pitted against substantial justice, the latter must prevail – Dismissal of revision without hearing petitioner held contrary to settled principles of law [Para 5].

Remand – Fresh Adjudication – Time-bound Disposal – Impugned order dated 21.06.2024 quashed – OSS Case No.630 of 2022 remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court-IV, Bhubaneswar for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to both parties – Direction to dispose of the revision within three months from petitioner’s appearance [Paras 6-9].

Direction to Parties – Appearance Before Authority – Petitioner directed to appear before the Revisional Authority on 12.01.2026 and file certified copy of the judgment for further proceedings [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

Service Law – Seniority – Direct Recruitment – BSF – Petitioners were declared unfit in initial medical examination and appointed after being found fit in Review Medical Examination – Claimed seniority with batchmates who joined earlier pursuant to the same selection – Held: Rule 8(2) of the 2002 Rules governs seniority and mandates it to be based on date of continuous regular appointment – Rule 8(3) regarding merit applies only when date of appointment is same – Delay, even if not attributable to petitioners, does not override the statutory mandate – Petitioners cannot claim seniority along with earlier appointees [Paras 10-14, 26-27].

Statutory Interpretation – Rule 8 of BSF Recruitment Rules, 2002 – Rule 8(2) held to apply to all appointments including direct recruitment – Interpretation in Ram Pal Deswal limiting Rule 8(2) to promotions found erroneous – Proviso cannot restrict scope of main provision – Rule 8(3) is subordinate to Rule 8(2) – Seniority must follow date of regular appointment, not merit alone [Paras 18.7-18.13, 21.1-21.6].

Conflicting Precedents – Full Bench resolves conflict – Division Bench ruling in Ram Pal Deswal overruled – Shoorvir Singh Negi approved as correct exposition of law – Other decisions like Naveen Kumar Jha, Avinash Singh, Naresh Kumar and M.V. Sheshagiri held distinguishable or not binding due to absence of Rule-based analysis – Dinesh Kumar also distinguished as dealing with different issue [Paras 7, 20-25].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to seniority from date of selection process – Seniority to be reckoned from date of actual appointment – No costs [Paras 26-29].

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Suit filed on 31st July 2021, registered on 18th December 2021 – High Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory on 1st October 2021 in Deepak Raheja – Held: Since suit was filed prior to that date, plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A – Filing of suit is relevant date for determining compliance, not registration [Paras 8, 22(a)-(b), 31].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No Cause of Action – Plaint alleges plaintiffs were beneficiaries under Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements – Defendant no. 1 (SBI) was account bank and allegedly withheld funds due to plaintiffs – Suit also based on representations made in Joint Lenders Forum meetings – Held: Cause of action adequately pleaded; whether it is illusory or defective is a matter for trial – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) not warranted [Paras 23–29].

Limitation – Recovery Suit – Article 113 of Limitation Act – Plaintiffs claim right to sue accrued only upon discovery of facts on 21st May 2019 via NCLT proceedings – Suit filed on 31st July 2021 – Held: Cause of action within limitation as pleaded; limitation involves mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial stage [Paras 30, 22(k), 29].

Mediation – Validity of Private Mediation – Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act read with 2018 Rules – Pre-litigation mediation attempted privately and failed – Held: Although private mediation does not fulfil mandatory requirement under Section 12-A, since suit was filed before Section 12-A was declared mandatory, rejection not warranted on this ground [Paras 5(a)-(b), 22(c), 31].

Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Court discourages frivolous applications for rejection of plaint that delay commercial suits – Reiterates power to reject plaint must be used sparingly and only when clear grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied [Para 32].

Decision: Application rejected – None of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC satisfied – Suit to proceed to trial [Para 33].

Service Law – Promotion – Non-Communication of APAR – Belated Communication in One Lot – Respondent communicated APARs for years 2008–09 to 2011–12 together in April 2013 just prior to DPC – Benchmark of 21/25 under Rules, 2012 not met – Held: Inordinate delay in communication frustrates object of APAR system – Violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 – Action arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12, 17-18].

APAR – Purpose of Communication – Improvement and Representation – Supreme Court in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh held every entry, whether adverse or not, must be communicated within reasonable time – Communication enables employee to improve performance and make effective representation – Belated communication defeats both objects – Sending APARs in one lot amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity [Paras 10.1-10.3, 11-14].

Benchmark for Promotion – Introduction under Rules, 2012 – 21 out of 25 for E-3 to E-4 based on last 5 years’ APARs – Though employer entitled to change rules and prescribe benchmark – However, employee cannot be prejudiced by employer’s failure to timely communicate APARs – Held: Benchmark cannot be applied to petitioner in circumstances of unfair conduct [Paras 8-8.1, 15, 18.4].

Natural Justice – Fairness in Administrative Action – Rules of natural justice flexible – Test is whether authority acted fairly – Inordinate delay without justification in communicating APARs amounts to unfair action – Right to be considered for promotion infringed due to arbitrary conduct of employer [Paras 11, 15-16].

Prejudice – Denial of Opportunity to Improve – Petitioner’s subsequent APARs (2012–13 onwards) graded ‘Very Good’/‘Outstanding’ after regular communication – Demonstrates importance of timely communication – Court held that earlier timely communication could have enabled petitioner to achieve benchmark – Employer’s lapse cannot operate to petitioner’s detriment [Paras 14, 18.2-18.3].

Right to Promotion – Distinction – No fundamental right to promotion but right to be considered is fundamental – When consideration denied due to arbitrary and unfair action of employer, Court can intervene under Article 226 – Held: Petitioner’s right to be fairly considered stood violated [Paras 15, 18.3].

Relief – Direction to DPC – Respondent directed to convene DPC within one month – Consider petitioner for promotion from E-3 to E-4 without applying benchmark under Rules, 2012 – If found eligible, grant promotion from date junior promoted with notional benefits and continuity but without monetary benefits [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Belated communication of APARs held arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and principles of natural justice – Respondent directed to reconsider petitioner’s case for promotion without applying benchmark of 21/25 under Rules, 2012 – Notional benefits granted if found eligible.

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(ja) Patents Act – Obviousness – Divisional Application – Appellant challenged refusal of patent for fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition of uPVC and ABS with wetted continuous fibers – Controller held claims obvious in light of prior art D1–D7 – Held, prior arts disclosed similar extrusion processes, uPVC–ABS blends and inherent wetting of fibers – No demonstrable technical advancement or economic significance established – Inventive step rightly denied [Paras 3–5, 11].

Patent Law – Obviousness Analysis – Person Skilled in the Art – Judicial Precedents – Appellant relied on Windsurfing–Pozzoli tests and anti-hindsight principles – Held, Controller applied correct test by comparing prior art, identifying differences and assessing obviousness without hindsight – Mere rearrangement or combination of known features insufficient to constitute inventive step [Paras 6–9, 11].

Patent Law – Amendment of Claims – Section 59(1) Patents Act – Scope and Permissibility – Appellant contended that incorporation of “wetted fibers” only narrowed claims – Held, amended claims already comprehended within parent application and disclosed no new inventive concept – Amendment cannot be used to overcome lack of inventive step when core subject matter remains obvious [Paras 5, 11].

Patent Law – Divisional Application – Section 16(2) Patents Act – Overlapping Subject Matter – Controller found amended claims fully covered by parent application which itself was not granted – Held, divisional application impermissible where no distinct invention emerges – Rejection justified [Paras 3, 11].

Patent Law – Role of High Court in Appeal under Section 117A – Interference with Controller’s Technical Findings – High Court will not substitute its view where Controller has undertaken detailed comparison of claims and prior art and applied settled legal principles – Impugned order found reasoned and free from legal infirmity [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Joint Controller of Patents and Designs refusing grant of patent upheld – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Personal Search – Non-Compliance with Section 50 – Conviction Set Aside – Accused allegedly found in possession of 450 grams of charas during personal search on a bus – IO failed to inform accused of right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Held: Violation of Section 50 vitiates conviction – Recovery rendered suspect and inadmissible – Conviction set aside [Paras 16–25].

Investigation – Anticipatory Mention of FIR Details – Recovery Memo Prepared Before FIR – FIR number and NDPS section mentioned in recovery and search memos even before registration of FIR – Casts serious doubt on authenticity and timing of documents – Documents appear to be prepared post-facto – Judicial scrutiny finds prosecution version doubtful [Paras 17–22].

NDPS Act – Evidentiary Standards – Higher Degree of Proof – Supreme Court decisions in Noor Aga and Ranjan Kumar Chadha reiterated – Strict procedural compliance required due to stringent nature of punishment – Courts must ensure individual liberty and fair trial rights not compromised [Paras 18, 23].

Trial – Fairness and Procedural Safeguards – Section 50 Compliance Mandatory – Constitutional mandate of fair trial requires strict adherence to statutory safeguards – Casual or defective investigation cannot form basis of conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery held unreliable [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court set aside – Accused acquitted of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act – Bail bonds discharged – Direction to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC for appearance before Supreme Court if required.

Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Offences – Serious Allegations of Sexual and Physical Cruelty – Application under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging dowry harassment, physical assault, sexual abuse including unnatural sex and attempted burning with cigarettes – Allegations spanning over two years of matrimonial relationship – Held: Case not a simple matrimonial dispute but involves grave and serious allegations warranting custodial interrogation [Paras 18–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR – Explanation Acceptable in Sexual Offences – FIR lodged after considerable delay – Explanation that complainant was traumatised, socially stigmatized and earlier attempts to lodge FIR were refused by police – Held: Delay in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual abuse and matrimonial cruelty is not fatal and does not discredit the prosecution case at the bail stage [Paras 12–13].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Recovery of Electronic and Physical Evidence – Allegations that accused possessed intimate photographs, hard disks, jewellery (streedhan), personal documents and electronic devices belonging to complainant – Held: Custodial interrogation necessary to recover crucial evidence, uncover full extent of offence and prevent tampering or misuse of sensitive material [Paras 14, 27–30].

Anticipatory Bail – WhatsApp Chats and Electronic Evidence – Prima Facie Assessment – WhatsApp communications containing abusive language, threats and intimidation relied upon by prosecution – Report under Section 65-B Evidence Act collected during investigation certifying genuineness of electronic evidence – Held: At anticipatory bail stage, Court can prima facie look into electronic material to assess gravity and necessity of custodial interrogation without conducting a mini-trial [Paras 15, 18].

Anticipatory Bail – Marital Consent – Bodily Autonomy of Spouse – Court observed that marriage does not imply automatic or perpetual sexual consent – Non-consensual and unnatural sexual acts within marriage cause physical and mental trauma and constitute grave offences – Held: Allegations of sexual assault within marriage cannot be trivialized at the stage of anticipatory bail [Paras 19–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Personal Liberty and Societal Interest – While personal liberty is important, Court must consider seriousness of offence, societal impact, likelihood of repetition and need for fair investigation – No special or compelling circumstances shown to justify pre-arrest protection – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at initial stage likely to hamper investigation [Paras 21–29].

Decision – Application rejected – Anticipatory bail declined – Trial court order upheld – Clarified that observations confined to bail stage and shall not prejudice regular bail or trial on merits [Paras 30–31].