Tenancy Law - Lease Agreement – Genuineness – Burden of Proof – Lease agreement (Ext-1) produced by plaintiff was alleged to be forged by defendants – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found Ext-1 to be genuine, notarized, and bearing signatures of defendants – Defendants failed to depose or challenge their signatures and withheld best evidence – Held: Agreement validly executed and trustworthy – Alternative version (Ext-B) filed before GST authority held to be inadmissible being self-serving admission under Section 21 of Evidence Act [Paras 10–11].

Arrear Rent – Quantum and Interest – Once Ext-1 held genuine, monthly rent of ₹4,00,000/- (excluding GST) accepted – Arrears correctly calculated from April 2020 to February 2021 – However, as lease agreement did not specify rate of interest for default, interest of 12% awarded by Trial Court reduced to 7.5% per annum by High Court as per prevailing bank rate [Paras 12–13, 19].

Damages – Unauthorized Occupation – Penal Clause in Lease – Clause 25 of lease allowed damages at double the rent upon breach – Trial Court awarded ₹27,000/- per day as damages relying on this clause – High Court held such penal clauses are subject to Section 74 of Indian Contract Act – Courts must award reasonable compensation, not necessarily the penalty – Damages revised to 10% of monthly rent per month from March 2021 to September 2024 [Paras 14–18].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Defendants challenged that additional documents filed in appeal were not considered – High Court noted that documents (Ext-B and Ext-C) were formally admitted during second appeal by separate order dated 05.12.2025 – Hence, substantial question of law on this count became academic [Paras 8–9].

Appeal Outcome – Second Appeal partly allowed – Eviction decree and arrear rent upheld – Interest rate modified to 7.5% per annum – Damages reduced to 10% of monthly rent per month for unauthorized occupation – No order as to costs [Paras 19–20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Non Bailable Warrants – NDPS Prosecution – Legality of Arrest Warrants – Proclaimed Offender Declaration – Petitioner not named in FIR but implicated through second disclosure of co-accused pharmacist – Initially placed in column No.2 of the charge-sheet – Non-bailable warrants issued by Magistrate and petitioner declared proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Held: In absence of proper service of notice or summons, declaration of proclaimed person is illegal – Further held that Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue such warrants under Section 36-A(1)(b) NDPS Act at investigation stage – Impugned orders quashed subject to costs [Paras 1, 2, 5].

Criminal Law – Disclosure Statement – Evidentiary Value – Petitioner named only in co-accused’s custodial disclosure – Held: Disclosure of co-accused not substantive evidence – Cannot form basis for prosecution without independent corroboration – Reliance placed on settled precedent including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [Paras 2, 5].

Criminal Procedure – Section 73 Cr.P.C. – Arrest Warrant for Aid of Investigation – Challenge to issuance of arrest warrant in absence of cognizance – Held: Warrants cannot be issued merely to aid investigation – Any such power must be exercised strictly as per law – Trial court’s action coram non judice [Para 2].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 26.09.2023, 16.10.2023, 30.11.2023, 06.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and 28.03.2024 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000 as costs with four institutions – On compliance and appearance before Trial Court within 10 days, petitioner to be released on bail during trial – Protection from arrest for 10 days granted – Failing compliance, order stands recalled and petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Petitioners (A2, A6, A7) sought bail in a case involving 200 kg of ganja – Prosecution relied on confessional statements of co-accused and antecedents of A2 and A6 – A7 had no criminal record – Held: Given commercial quantity and habitual nature of offence, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Bail rightly denied [Paras 4, 5, 19, 20, 23].

Arrest and Remand – Communication of Grounds – Petitioners claimed violation of Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS due to non-furnishing of grounds of arrest – Court held arrest memos and remand reports reflected communication – Petitioners legally represented and applied for bail promptly – No demonstrable prejudice – No merit in plea [Paras 10, 13, 14, 21].

Admissibility – Confessional Statements of Co-Accused – Petitioners argued that reliance on co-accused’s confession was barred under Tofan Singh – Court found statements corroborated by seizure and chemical analysis – Prima facie case made out – Bail declined [Paras 4, 5, 22].

Procedural Lapse – Sampling and Forensic Reliability – Petitioners alleged improper sampling and seizure protocols – Court held such grounds require trial scrutiny – Not a ground to override bar under Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 7].

Constitutional Safeguards – Delay in Production – Alleged delay in producing petitioners before Magistrate found unsubstantiated – Arrest and remand held lawful [Para 6].

Judicial Discretion – Societal Impact of Narcotics Offences – Court reiterated that trafficking of commercial quantity poses serious societal threats – Petitioners failed to show they are not guilty or would not reoffend – Bail justifiably denied [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Decision: Criminal Petitions dismissed – Bail rejected – Petitioners failed to meet statutory conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – No violation of arrest procedure shown – Custody lawful.

Goods and Services Tax – Appeal – Condonation of Delay – Petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act with a delay of six days beyond the statutory limit of 120 days – Appellate Authority rightly held it lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond prescribed period – High Court upheld finding that even discretionary extension is limited to 30 days beyond initial 3-month period [Paras 7–8.1]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction seeking direction to condone delay rejected by appellate authority – High Court held powers under Article 226 cannot override express statutory bar on limitation – Reference made to Supreme Court’s ruling in Glaxo Smith Kline and ONGC cases – Legislative intent behind limitation provisions must be respected [Paras 9–14]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained – Court held petitioner had already availed statutory appellate remedy and cannot seek to reopen matter through writ petition in absence of jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice – No exceptional circumstances shown to justify bypassing of statutory mechanism [Para 16]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Delay of six days in filing appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act held uncondonable – Appellate Authority order upheld – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained in view of alternative remedy already pursued – No costs awarded [Para 17]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Disproportionate Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Article 14 – Petitioner, a Head Constable in CID, was punished with permanent forfeiture of two annual increments for not informing seniors promptly about the loss of a service animal – Inquiry established that petitioner was not responsible for the animal's disappearance – Held: There was only a minor lapse in timing of communication – The punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct – Modified from permanent to temporary forfeiture of two increments [Paras 6, 9-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Arbitrary and Excessive Penalty – Violation of Equality Clause – Citing Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated that excessive or mechanical punishment without commensurate misconduct is violative of Article 14 – Court observed that State authorities acted mechanically and without justification in inflicting harsh penalty [Paras 7-8].

Administrative Law – Avoidance of Remand – Delay and Lapse of Time – Judicial Economy – Though normally the matter would be remanded to reconsider the quantum of punishment, the Court exercised discretion to modify punishment directly given the lapse of over two decades – Remand would only prolong litigation unnecessarily [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect modified to temporary effect – Respondents directed to pay arrears arising from modified punishment within six months, failing which interest @7.5% p.a. will apply – Petition disposed of [Paras 10, 12-13].

Civil Law – Appeal by Non-Party – Grant of Leave to Appeal – Section 96 CPC – Locus Standi – Application by a person who was not a party to the suit seeking leave to file first appeal against an ex parte decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession – Held: Mere non-joinder as a party is not an absolute bar, but the applicant must establish that she is bound by or prejudicially affected by the decree – Non-party must show semblance of subsisting right over the suit property [Paras 5–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Discretionary Order – District Judge granted leave to appeal by a cryptic and non-speaking order without proper reasoning – High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised where the subordinate court fails to consider relevant legal parameters while granting leave to appeal to a non-party [Paras 3, 6].

Ex Parte Decree – Declaration of Title and Possession – Encroacher’s Claim – First Appellate Court relied on Amin’s report showing encroachment by the applicant prior to filing of suit – Held: Encroachment or assertion of an independent claim does not ipso facto make such person “adversely affected” by the decree – Such person had remedy either to seek impleadment in the suit or to file an independent suit [Paras 6–8].

Fraud Allegation – Knowledge of Suit – Effect – Applicant seeking leave to appeal did not plead lack of knowledge of pendency of suit – Allegation of fraud simpliciter insufficient to confer right to appeal against decree – Held: Absence of pleading showing binding effect of decree disentitles non-party from maintaining appeal [Para 8].

Decision: CMP allowed – Order dated 28.01.2020 granting leave to appeal set aside – Non-party cannot challenge the decree by way of appeal – Liberty reserved to seek appropriate independent legal remedy, if so advised.

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partition suit based on plea of acquisition from joint family funds – Defendants sought rejection of plaint for no cause of action and limitation – Held: plaint pleaded foundational facts and limitation was a mixed question – rejection refused – appeal dismissed [Paras 20-39].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC – “Cause of action” test – Court to undertake meaningful reading of plaint as a whole and documents relied upon – Truthfulness of allegations not to be examined – Only whether averments disclose right to sue – Plaint cannot be dissected sentence-wise and read in isolation – Defence in written statement/application irrelevant [Paras 20-23, 25, 27-28].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit barred by law – Bar must be evident from plaint statements – Where limitation/statutory bar not ex facie apparent and requires evidence, plaint not rejectable – Continuation termed abuse only when bar is apparent on face of plaint [Paras 22, 25, 36-38].

Partition – Pleadings – Joint family / hotchpotch plea – Requirement of material particulars – Distinguishing prior Delhi High Court precedents – Where plaint specifically pleads source of acquisition as joint family funds and sale proceeds of पिता’s properties, foundational facts sufficient – Sagar Gambhir and Sunny (Minor) distinguished as plaint there lacked essential particulars like creation of HUF, succession chain etc. [Paras 30-33].

Limitation – Partition suit – Article 113 Limitation Act – Right to sue accrues upon refusal of demand for partition – Cause of action recurring so long as joint status subsists – Plaint averred partition discussions in 2018 and refusal thereafter – At Order VII Rule 11 stage, such averments to be accepted – Suit not barred on face of plaint [Paras 35-37].

Partition v. Challenge to title documents – Defendants argued suit indirectly challenges old registered documents – Held: plaint did not seek to set aside title deeds – Plaintiff asserted share on basis of joint family funds – Relief remains partition, not cancellation – Limitation objection therefore not determinable at threshold [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order declining rejection of plaint upheld – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rightly dismissed [Paras 38-39].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Dowry Death Allegation – Accused was charged only under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC after being discharged under Section 304-B IPC – Trial Court acquitted the accused noting inconsistencies and material improvements in prosecution evidence – Held: Acquittal justified as initial missing person report did not allege any cruelty or dowry demand, and later allegations were vague and uncorroborated – No illegality or perversity found in trial court’s findings [Paras 4-7, 25-30].

Evidence – Contradictions and Improvements – Prosecution witnesses including parents and brother of the deceased (PW-9, PW-10, PW-11) made significant improvements and inconsistent statements over time – No plausible explanation for late allegations or omissions at the initial stage – Trial Court rightly disbelieved their testimony – Held: Improvements appeared motivated to falsely implicate accused and fulfil ingredients of Section 498-A IPC [Paras 26-30].

Cause of Death – Suicide or Accident – Post-mortem confirmed death due to antemortem drowning – No eyewitnesses or direct proof of suicide – Held: Prosecution failed to clarify how the deceased fell into the drain – Possibility of accidental fall or other causes not ruled out – No conclusive proof of suicide or abetment [Paras 22, 32-34].

Presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act – Applicability – Held: Presumption of abetment of suicide not attracted unless cruelty is clearly established – Foundational facts not proved – General and vague allegations not sufficient to invoke presumption under Section 113A [Para 33].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Held: Appellate Court will not interfere unless findings of the Trial Court are perverse or contrary to law – Trial Court's view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – No compelling ground to overturn acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 35-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Bail bonds cancelled and surety discharged.

Service Law – Medical Officers – Higher Studies – Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) – Refusal of NOC – Discrimination – Article 14 – In-service Medical Officer of OMHS cadre denied NOC solely on ground of opting for Sponsored DNB – State policy dated 02.09.2022 distinguishing between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB found arbitrary – No intelligible differentia established – Held: Denial of NOC violative of equality clause under Article 14 [Paras 19–24, 32–33, 39].

Education Law – Post Graduate Medical Admission – DNB (Post MBBS) – Sponsored Category – NBEMS Regulations – No distinction under NMC or NBEMS between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB – State cannot create artificial classification inconsistent with central regulatory framework – Differential treatment of similarly situated in-service doctors impermissible [Paras 20–22, 31–33].

Service Rules – Study Leave – Odisha Service Code – Rule 179 – Applicability to Medical Officers – Rule 179 binding on State Government – State cannot deny benefit of study leave/NOC contrary to statutory service rules framed under Article 309 – Policy decision inconsistent with statutory rules unsustainable [Paras 8–10, 34–36].

Administrative Law – Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Limits – While State has discretion in service policy, such discretion subject to constitutional limitations – Policy dated 02.09.2022 lacked reasons for excluding Sponsored DNB – Reasons cannot be supplemented by affidavits – Decision must stand on reasons contained therein – Held: Policy clause refusing NOC for Sponsored DNB arbitrary and unreasonable [Paras 30–38].

Constitution of India – Equality before Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Differential treatment of OMHS doctors opting for Sponsored DNB versus Non-Sponsored DNB – Both governed by same service conditions – No rational nexus with object sought to be achieved – Policy struck down as violative of Article 14 [Paras 22–24, 39].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – State directed to grant No Objection Certificate to petitioner to enable participation in Centralized Merit Based Counselling for Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) 2025 – NOC to be issued by 02.01.2026 – Consequential participation in counselling permitted – No order as to costs [Para 40].