Stamp Act – Section 35 – Marking of unstamped/unregistered partition deed at interlocutory stage – Trial Court cannot compel payment of stamp duty and penalty before stage of evidence – Exhibits cannot be marked during IA hearing – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for decision on IA based on prima facie materials [Paras 5–8].

Stamp Act – Section 35 – Unstamped Instruments – When Duty/Penalty Payable – Under Section 35(a), an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument becomes admissible in evidence only upon payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty – However, such requirement arises only at the stage when a party seeks to admit the document in evidence – Held: At the IA stage, where evidence is not being formally collected, direction to pay duty and penalty is premature [Paras 4–6].

Interlocutory Proceedings – Marking of Exhibits – Improper at IA Stage – In an application for temporary injunction, documents may be looked into for prima facie satisfaction but cannot be formally marked as exhibits – Trial Court erred in marking Exs.P1–P6 and R1–R12 at the injunction stage – Exhibiting of documents is permissible only during trial when evidence is formally tendered [Paras 5–7].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Impounding – When Appropriate – Whether an unregistered partition deed requires impounding under Section 33 or attracting Section 35 consequences arises only when the document is sought to be admitted in evidence – Trial Court may consider impounding at the appropriate evidentiary stage during witness examination, but not at the IA stage [Paras 6–8].

Civil Revision – Impugned Order Illegal – Set Aside – Trial Court’s order directing payment of stamp duty and penalty before trial commenced held illegal and improper – Order quashed – Trial Court directed to decide I.A. No.477/2017 based on oral and documentary materials placed for prima facie consideration without treating them as exhibits [Paras 7–9].

Direction for Expeditious Disposal – Trial Court directed to dispose I.A. No.477/2017 within three weeks and the suit within one year, avoiding unnecessary adjournments; parties directed to cooperate [Para 10].

Hindu Law – Private Debuttar – Building Plan Sanction – Shebaits’ Authority – No Statutory Requirement of Prior Court Permission – Municipality Cannot Demand Civil Court Order for Development of Debuttar Property – Impugned Refusal Quashed – Municipality Directed to Process Plan [Paras 29–37].

Hindu Religious Endowments – Private Debuttar – Nature of Shebaitship – Shebait not a “trustee” under the Indian Trusts Act – Savings clause in Section 1 excludes Debuttar properties – Section 34 inapplicable – Shebait possesses inherent managerial authority to develop property for benefit of the deity – No statutory mandate requiring prior permission of Civil Court for development of private Debuttar estate [Paras 28–31].

Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Scope of Municipal Authority – Municipality cannot insist on production of civil court order as condition precedent for sanctioning building plan of Debuttar property – Function of Municipality is administrative and confined to verifying compliance with building regulations – Municipality cannot adjudicate Shebaitship disputes or validity of Arpannama/Rectification Deed [Paras 29–34].

Administrative Law – Mohinder Singh Gill principle – Authority cannot supplement or improve the impugned order with new reasons during litigation – Municipality’s attempt to add new objections during writ proceedings impermissible [Para 14].

Debuttar Property – Development vs. Alienation – Proposed construction held to be an act of preservation and beneficial utilization, not alienation – Consistent judicial view (Shakuntala Devi Dalmia; Kunal Kumar Adhikary; Risabh Ruia) followed – Court distinguishes precedents relied on by Municipality as inapplicable on facts [Paras 31–33, 35–36].

Shebaitship – Validity of Present Shebaits – Arpannama provides for succession by male heirs – Municipality not competent to question authority of Shebaits – No rival claimants shown – Shebaits’ Development Agreement validly executed for benefit of deity [Para 34].

Decision – Impugned notice quashed – Municipality directed to process the building plan strictly under applicable laws and to take a final decision within 8 weeks – Writ petition allowed [Para 36–37].

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act – Protected Tenancy – Statutory Purchase – Sections 32G & 32M – Effect of Mutation Entries – Exclusive Title – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Plaintiff (sister) filed suit for partition in 2002 claiming suit property as joint family property inherited from parents who died in 1949 and 1978 – Evidence showed that defendant Krishnabai became protected tenant in 1957 and purchase was duly completed in 1961 after statutory inquiry, issuance of 32G order, fixation of purchase price, and issuance of sale certificate under 32M – Held: Once purchase under 32G/32M fructifies, title statutorily vests in tenant and property ceases to form part of estate of predecessors – Civil Court cannot ignore binding statutory orders – Concurrent findings contrary to statutory record unsustainable [Paras 5.1–5.4, 10–12, 15–16, 25–26].

Tenancy Law – Representative Capacity – Claim of Joint Family Cultivation – No Evidence – Plaintiff failed to prove that Krishnabai’s protected tenancy was in representative capacity for entire family – No evidence of joint cultivation, sharing of produce, or admission by tenant/landlord as required under Ramakant Ganesh Naik precedent – On contrary, evidence and revenue records (Exhs. 41–50) show exclusive cultivation by Krishnabai for decades – Held: Property not proved to be joint family property – Ratio of Ramakant Ganesh Naik inapplicable; reliance misconceived [Paras 12–15, 22–23].

Limitation – Partition Suit – Articles 65-B & 110 – Plaintiff silent from 1957 to 2002 – No steps to challenge mutation, 32G order, or 32M sale certificate despite public notices and statutory proceedings – First challenge raised only via suit in 2002, nearly 41 years after vesting of title – Held: Suit hopelessly barred; plea of exclusion within 12 years unproved – Mere assertion of proposal for partition unsupported by evidence – Plaintiff’s witness admitted complete absence of proof of joint possession – Limitation bars the suit [Paras 16–17, 19–24, 26].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Sections 85 & 85-A, BT&AL Act – When Bar Applies – Findings of tenancy authorities under 32G/32M are binding – Civil Court cannot reopen or disregard statutory vesting – Trial Court ought to have declined jurisdiction or referred matter appropriately – Failure to consider statutory bar constitutes legal infirmity warranting interference in second appeal [Paras 6.4–6.6, 25–26].

Statutory Proceedings – Public Notice – Non-challenge – Plaintiff’s long silence – Sale certificate shows public notices, individual notices, and participation of interested persons – Plaintiff neither objected nor appealed under tenancy law – Challenge before SDO in 2002 stood rejected – Held: Plaintiff estopped from disputing statutory vesting of title in 1961 [Paras 18–21, 23].

Substantial Questions of Law – Answered in Appellant’s Favour – Courts below ignored binding statutory orders under 32G/32M and misapplied principles of joint family property and limitation – High Court sets aside both judgments [Paras 26–30].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments dated 08.02.2006 and 21.01.2017 set aside – Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2002 dismissed – Record to be returned to Trial Court after appeal period – Parties may act on server copy [Paras 27–30].

Service Law – BSF – Disciplinary Proceedings – Extra-marital Conduct – Officer engaged in intimate relationship with a female constable while being married – Compromising photographs leaked and circulated on social media – SCOI and ROE conducted – Disciplinary authority found conduct to be unbecoming of an officer in a disciplined force – Held: Relationship, though consensual, constituted grave misconduct warranting action under Rule 20(2) and 20(4)(c) of BSF Rules – Compulsory retirement upheld [Paras 2–6, 18–19, 38–39].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Disciplinary Action – High Court reiterates that Court cannot substitute its views unless the decision is illegal, arbitrary, or perverse – Decision to treat holding of GSFC as "inexpedient" is valid if based on material facts and nature of misconduct – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice as officer was heard at multiple stages – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 21–22, 30–31, 34–40].

Interpretation – Rule 20(2) of BSF Rules – Meaning of "Inexpedient" – Court held term "inexpedient" has wider ambit than "not reasonably practicable" – Covers situations where holding GSFC may not be suitable or appropriate to achieve disciplinary objectives – Rule 20(2) intended to give discretion to competent authority in fit cases without mandatory GSFC – Held: Invocation of Rule 20(2) justified in facts of case [Paras 30–37].

Constitutional Law – Distinction from Article 311(2)(c) – Rule 20(2) BSF Rules operates independently and does not require satisfaction on grounds of “security of the State” unlike Article 311(2)(c) – Full Bench decision in Laishram Sushil Singh not applicable to BSF Rule 20(2) – Held: Provisions not pari materia and operate under different legal tests [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner under Rule 20(4)(c) of the BSF Rules – Held: Decision to invoke Rule 20(2) based on seriousness of misconduct and nature of evidence was lawful – No ground for judicial interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India [Para 41].

Judicial Service – Temporary Promotion – Rule 31(a)(i) KS&SSR – Rule 8 Judicial Ministerial Rules – Government Circulars of 1997 & 2008 banning temporary promotion cannot override statutory rules – Vacancies in Bench Clerk Grade-I causing administrative stagnation due to disproportionate cadre strength – Government’s 19.07.2025 communication allowing temporary promotions following seniority under proviso to Rule 28(a) – Held: Competent authorities free to effect temporary promotions untrammelled by earlier circulars – Writ petition disposed of with declaration [Paras 18–23, 26–28].

Judicial Service – Temporary Promotions – Effect of Rule 31(a)(i) KS&SSR – Emergency Requirement – Stagnation in Cadre - Rule 31(a)(i) empowers appointing authorities to make temporary promotions in public interest where immediate vacancies exist and there would be undue delay in regular promotions – Such promotions permissible even without declared probation if seniority is maintained as per the proviso – Court notes eight vacancies of Bench Clerk Grade-I and several Central Nazir vacancies, leading to functional paralysis – Held: Temporary promotion permissible; Rule 31(a)(i) cannot be neutralised by executive circulars [Paras 6–7, 17–19, 23, 26].

Government Circulars – Circulars of 1997 and 2008 Banning Temporary Promotions – No Override over Statutory Rules - Ext.P6 (09.09.1997) and Ext.P7 (15.09.2008) imposed a ban on temporary promotions under Rule 31(a)(i) requiring CM-level justification and intended eventual cessation – Court holds that circulars cannot override or dilute statutory powers under Rule 31(a)(i) KS&SSR and Rule 8 of the 1975 Rules – Hence such circulars cannot be invoked to deny temporary promotions in exigencies of judicial administration [Paras 20–22, 26].

Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 8 – Seniority Subject to Fitness – Interplay with KS&SSR - Rule 8 mandates promotion strictly by seniority subject to fitness – Petitioners contended this statutory rule overrides administrative restrictions – Court accepts that statutory rules prevail over conflicting circulars and administrative instructions – Held: Rule 8 read with Rule 31(a)(i) governs promotions; circulars cannot operate to frustrate statutory eligibility [Paras 20–23, 26].

Cadre Imbalance – Central Nazir (41 posts) vs Bench Clerk Grade-I (182 posts) – Practical Impossibility of Regular Promotion - Court records severe structural imbalance causing inability to promote due to paucity of approved probationers in feeder category – High Court’s proposal to make Central Nazir and Bench Clerk Grade-I interchangeable noted – Amendment to Special Rules pending before Legislature – Until legislative amendment, temporary promotions indispensable to maintain judicial functioning [Paras 10–13, 23–25].

Government Communication dated 19.07.2025 – Relaxation in Approach – Permitting Temporary Promotion - Additional Chief Secretary’s 19.07.2025 letter states temporary promotions may be granted without supersession of seniors following first proviso to Rule 28(a)(i) – Court treats this as relaxation of earlier rigid stand – This communication reinforces validity of temporary promotions in present exigency [Paras 27–28].

Circulars Cannot Nullify Rule-Made Power – Statutory Rule Prevails - Court reiterates principle that executive circulars cannot water down statutory authorities’ powers unless Rules themselves are amended – Amendments to Special Rules are legislative and pending; till then statutory discretion under Rule 31 continues unaffected [Paras 23, 26].

Decision: Held: Respondents 4–19 (District Judges/Registrar) competent and free to effect temporary promotions to Bench Clerk Grade-I under Rule 31(a)(i) KS&SSR maintaining seniority and subject to fitness – Such promotions shall not be restricted or prevented by Government Circulars of 1997 and 2008 – Writ petition disposed of with declaration; no costs [Paras 26–28].

Writ Petition – Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners challenged 33KV transmission line being laid through residential area citing safety concerns and violations of Indian Electricity Rules – However, petitioners failed to disclose ongoing civil suit on identical subject matter with interim relief already granted by Trial Court – Held: Non-disclosure of parallel litigation amounts to abuse of process and fraudulent misrepresentation; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked with unclean hands [Paras 14–26, 30].

Electricity Infrastructure – Safety Standards – Petitioners raised concerns regarding insufficient clearance (less than 3.7 meters) from residential buildings in alleged violation of Indian Electricity Rules – Spot inspection confirmed proximity of lines to houses – However, since matter was already under adjudication in civil court, High Court declined to adjudicate merits under Article 226 [Paras 3–11, 22].

Civil Suit Pending – Parallel Proceedings – Interim relief in civil suit already granted to maintain status quo – Petitioners failed to await outcome and instead filed writ – Held: Filing of writ petition despite pendency of civil proceedings on same cause of action is improper and amounts to forum shopping [Paras 16–20, 24–25].

Costs Imposed – Concealment of Facts – Petition dismissed in limine with cost of ₹20,000 to be deposited in Advocates’ Welfare Fund – Exemplary costs imposed to deter litigants from misleading the Court [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Petition dismissed in limine – Petitioners held to have suppressed material facts – Costs of ₹20,000 imposed for abuse of process – Petition to be listed after two weeks for verification of cost deposit compliance.

Approver – Revocation of Pardon – Section 308 CrPC – Trial Court revoked pardon without Public Prosecutor’s certificate – Held: Though ordinarily certificate under Section 308 is prerequisite, Court may revoke pardon where approver and prosecution misled Court and where pardon was improperly granted despite overwhelming documentary evidence – Revocation justified; evidence rightly expunged – Summoning under Section 319 CrPC of co-loanee / joint account-holder upheld – All three revisions dismissed [Paras 21, 26–36].

Criminal Procedure – Tender of Pardon – Sections 306–308 CrPC – Legal Framework – Once pardon is granted, approver stands discharged and becomes prosecution witness – Withdrawal of pardon ordinarily requires Public Prosecutor’s certificate certifying violation of conditions of pardon – Evidence of approver thereafter must be ignored in toto – Principles reaffirmed from State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari, A.J. Peiris, Hiralal Girdharilal Kothari, and Jagjit Singh [Paras 16–18].

Revocation of Approver Status – Whether Court Can Act Suo Motu – In present case, trial court revoked pardon at stage of final arguments without certificate under Section 308 CrPC – Held: Although certificate is ordinarily mandatory, where both prosecution and approver mislead court and pardon itself was improperly obtained, court may invoke inherent power to revoke pardon – Court found CBI’s claim that approver was not principal beneficiary to be misleading; documentary evidence overwhelmingly proved his involvement – Revocation justified [Paras 21, 29–35].

Approver’s Misconduct – Circumstances Justifying Revocation – Documentary record showed approver (A-3) as principal beneficiary of fraudulent housing loans, illegal gratification to bank officials, and attempted misuse of fraudulent Safe Keeping Receipt (SKR) of ₹100.86 crores – Evidence showed payment of car purchase amounts as bribe; loans credited to his and wife’s joint account; attempts to siphon public money – Trial Court correctly held approver misled Court and was undeserving of pardon – No prejudice caused by revocation [Paras 23–34].

CBI’s Conduct – Misleading the Court – CBI’s application supporting pardon claimed lack of evidence against A-3 despite seizure of incriminating documents – Court held CBI “misled the Trial Court” and improperly facilitated accused’s approver status – Such conduct justified court’s corrective action independent of Section 308 procedure [Paras 28–32].

Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning of Smt. Kaveri Dutta – Evidence showed she was joint account-holder, co-loanee, signatory to withdrawals, beneficiary of housing loans, aware of transactions – Prosecution witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW12) disclosed her role – Prima facie case established – Trial Court rightly summoned her under Section 319 CrPC – No interference warranted [Para 36].

Documentary Evidence – Prosecution’s Case Not Dependent on Approver – Trial Court rightly held that prosecution case rested substantially on seized bank records, SKR documents, cheques, loan papers, and correspondence – Approver’s testimony had little bearing on merits – Revocation and expunging of deposition caused no impairment to prosecution case – Findings upheld [Paras 26–27, 30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference – Revisional Court will not interfere unless order suffers from illegality, material irregularity or perversity – Impugned order well within jurisdiction; based on correct appreciation of record – No ground for interference in any of the three revision petitions [Paras 35–37].

Decision – All three criminal revision petitions (CRR 516/2020, CRR 2504/2021, CRR 1252/2022) dismissed – Interim orders vacated – Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 37–40].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Grounds of Arrest – Compliance with Article 22(1) – Search at Night – Inventory/Sampling – Section 37 Rigour – Held: Grounds of arrest duly communicated prior to remand; seizure indicates commercial quantity (31.78 g MDMA); quantitative test delay immaterial; Section 37 bar applies – Bail rejected [Paras 12–18].

NDPS Act – Bail – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Mandatory Constitutional Requirement – Compliance Established – Arrest Not Vitiated – Petitioner contended that he was taken into custody at night without being informed the grounds of arrest – Relying on Ahmed Mansoor, Vihaan Kumar and Mihir Rajesh Shah, Court reiterated constitutional mandate under Arts. 21 & 22(1) – Held, records show written grounds of arrest with petitioner’s signature/LTM furnished before production before Magistrate along with remand papers – Requirement under Mihir Rajesh Shah satisfied; arrest not illegal [Paras 7–14].

NDPS Act – Search Conducted After Sunset – Recording of Grounds of Belief – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Petitioner argued that search between 11:35 p.m. and 2:15 a.m. was illegal – Court held that mahazar contains recorded grounds of belief for conducting night search – Challenge unsustainable at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Inventory and Sampling – Stage of Investigation – Non-Consideration at Bail Stage – Petitioner relied on Bharat Aambale and Nagaraj @ Wilson Garden Naga claiming inventory/sampling not done in his presence – Court held that no material produced regarding sampling process and investigation is ongoing; such objections cannot be adjudicated at bail stage [Para 15].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – FSL Report Available – Quantitative Test Pending – Effect Under Rule 14 of NDPS Rules, 2022 – FSL report shows sample weight before test 31.78 g and positive for MDMA – Held, this constitutes commercial quantity – Delay in quantitative analysis does not dilute seizure or quantity at this stage and does not defeat Section 37 bar [Paras 16–17].

NDPS Act – Rigour of Section 37 – Reasonable Grounds Not Established – Bail Denied – Court held that quantity seized being commercial, Section 37(1)(b) applies – No material to conclude petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to re-offend; possibility of tampering with investigation or witnesses exists – Bail rejected [Para 17].

Bail – Seriousness of Offence – Punishment Extending up to 20 Years – Investigation in Progress – Nature of offence (commercial quantity MDMA) punishable with minimum 10 years and up to 20 years – Grant of bail would prejudice investigation – Bail rejected [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 18].

Electricity – Crop Damage – Strict Liability – Respondent’s wheat crop destroyed by fire due to electrical short-circuit from a Three Phase LT Line passing over his field – Writ Court directed compensation of ₹50,400 with 6% interest – Defence of natural calamity (wind storm) raised by State rejected – No proof of windstorm placed on record – High Court upheld finding that Electricity Department failed in its duty to maintain the electric line safely – Held: Transmission of high-voltage electricity is inherently hazardous – Even without negligence, supplier is strictly liable under law of torts for damage caused by uncontrolled discharge of electric energy – Referenced Supreme Court’s judgment in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and J&K High Court’s ruling in Gittan Ram v. State – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Writ Court’s award of ₹50,400 compensation with interest upheld – Doctrine of strict liability applied – State liable irrespective of proven negligence.