Civil Law - Partition - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Sections 5, 11 and 16 - Plaintiffs-appellants filed suit for partition claiming to be daughters of deceased father born out of his second marriage with their mother during the subsistence of his first marriage with the first defendant - Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that marriage and customary rites were not proved and Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act did not apply without proof of marriage - High Court dismissed the appeal and civil miscellaneous petition for additional evidence holding that biological paternity alone without proof of solemnisation of a void marriage cannot attract Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act - Held - Trial Court judgment and decree confirmed - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-38].

Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLI Rule 1 and Order XLI Rule 27 - Plaintiffs sought to produce additional documents and examine their mother and other relatives at the appellate stage to prove marriage - Held - additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up lacunae or patch up weak points in a party case when the proposed witnesses were available during trial and no due diligence was shown - [Paras 17-23].

Civil Law - Proof of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Sections 5 and 11 - Plaintiffs claimed long cohabitation and public recognition to establish marriage - Defendants denied marriage and produced patta describing mother as wife of another person - Held - in the absence of pleadings or proof of specific date, place, ceremonies, or customary requirements of the alleged marriage, mere cohabitation and paternity records do not establish a marriage void under Section 11 so as to invoke Section 16 - [Paras 24-31].

Civil Law - Legitimacy of Children - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 16 - Applicability - Proof of biological paternity versus proof of marriage - Held - to attract Section 16 sub-section 1 there must first be a solemnisation of marriage between the parents which is null and void under Section 11 - where no marriage at all was solemnised, the relationship cannot be treated as a void marriage for invoking Section 16 - [Paras 32-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit for partition confirmed – Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 19560 of 2025 dismissed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Condonation of Delay - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Statutory Right of Appeal - Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act by the Judicial Magistrate Jaora and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment with a compensation deposit of Rs 140000 - Petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court with a delay of 12 days citing his rural background and intervening court holidays - The Sessions Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal at the threshold without adjudication on merits - Petitioner moved the High Court in revision - Held - The expression sufficient cause must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice - A minimal delay of 12 days should not be used to defeat a valuable statutory right of appeal - The lower appellate court adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a judicious manner - Impugned order quashed and matter remanded for decision on merits - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Revision - M.P. High Court Rules - Rule 48 - Exemption from Surrender - Petitioner sought exemption from surrender under Rule 48 read with Section 482 CrPC - Respondent relied on Deepak Sahu case to argue that surrender is a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining a revision petition - High Court examined the objective of Rule 48 and the Supreme Court ruling in Vivek Rai - Held - Rule 48 is intended to prevent convicted persons from evading law after their conviction has been substantively scrutinized and sustained by two consecutive courts - In the present case the petitioner was deprived of his first appeal on a technical limitation bar without any merit-based review - Enforcing strict surrender at this stage would result in excessive procedural hardship not intended by the framework of the rules - Exemption from surrender allowed - [Paras 20-29].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.04.2026 quashed – Matter remanded to the Sessions Court to decide the appeal on merits – Petitioner directed to approach the Sessions Court within 30 days – Exemption from surrender granted until the petitioner approaches the Sessions Court.

Civil Law - Limitation - West Bengal Municipal Act 1993 - Section 218(3) - Period of limitation for municipal appeal - Petitioner challenged demolition order before the Civil Judge Junior Division - Appeal dismissed by the lower court as being barred by the law of limitation - Petitioner contended that no limitation period is prescribed under the West Bengal Municipal Act 1993 for filing an appeal under Section 218(3) - High Court observed that when a special statute does not provide an express limitation period the principle of reasonable time applies - Held - It is improper for courts to dismiss a plea solely on the ground of delay without examining the nature of the order and prejudice caused to the other party - Where no limitation stands prescribed it would be inappropriate for a Court to supplant the legislature’s wisdom by its own and provide a limitation - Impugned order set aside - Matter remanded for fresh reconsideration - [Paras 1-9].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 116 - Import of limitation by implication - Trial Court attributed limitation period provided under the Limitation Act to proceedings under the West Bengal Municipal Act 1993 - High Court relied on Chanchal Kumar Das vs. Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality to hold that in the absence of a specific limitation provided under the special Act the applicability of the Limitation Act stands excluded by necessary implication - Held - Any law prescribing a period of limitation has the consequence of creation or destruction of rights and must be specifically enacted - Courts cannot import specific periods of limitation by implication where none exists - [Paras 5-7].

Civil Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference - Challenge to order of Civil Judge Junior Division - High Court noted that the lower court committed a material irregularity by holding the appeal was filed beyond a prescribed period when none was enacted - Held - Jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised when there is manifest illegality or perversity - Matter remanded with directions to consider the aspect of prejudice caused by delay if any - [Paras 2-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated October 3, 2023 passed by Learned Civil Judge Junior Division 2nd Court Barrackpore set aside – Matter remanded to the learned Appellate Court for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law – Appellate Court directed to take a holistic view and consider the aspect of prejudice caused to the opposite party on account of delay.

Writ Law - Service Law - Transfer - Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Challenge to transfer order - Petitioner serving as doctor at BBMB Hospital Nangal transferred to Sunder Nagar - Ground of challenge was distance of 150km and presence of one-year-old child needing parental care - Respondents contended transfer is incident of service and cited Supreme Court rulings - Court observed that petitioner was transferred via general transfer - No case of mala fide intention or punishment was established - Settled law that transfer is an ordinary incident of service and does not result in alteration of conditions of service to disadvantage - No government servant can claim to remain in a particular place unless the appointment is to a non-transferable post - Guidelines for transfers are for administrative guidance and do not vest immunity in employees - Judicial review limited to cases of clear arbitrariness or malice or statutory violation - Scope of judicial review further curtailed where career prospects remain unaffected - Held - Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit - [Paras 1-15].

Service Law - Transfer - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Incident of service - Scope of interference - Challenge to transfer based on personal circumstances - Supreme Court precedents establish that government servants have no legal right to remain posted at a particular place - Transfer is a condition of service necessary for public administration efficiency - Judicial interference is eschewed where career prospects remain unaffected and no statutory violation is proved - Administrative authorities are best suited to decide postings in public interest - Held - Transfer order sustained - [Paras 8-13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Transfer order dated 06.07.2026 upheld.

Writ Law - SARFAESI Act - Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Section 14 - Ministerial Nature of Power - Petitioner-Bank challenged the order of the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmedabad (Rural) which rejected an application under Section 14 for taking possession of secured assets - Magistrate had adjudicated on merits regarding the classification of the borrower account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and alleged violations of RBI guidelines - Petitioner contended that the Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction as the power is ministerial and not adjudicatory - High Court perused the scheme of the SARFAESI Act and the mandate of Section 14 - High Court observed that the Magistrate is only required to verify the compliance of formalities mentioned in the proviso to Section 14(1) - Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent stating that the Magistrate cannot adjudicate disputes between borrowers and creditors at this stage - Held - The Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating on the merits of the NPA classification - Order dated 18.04.2026 quashed and set aside - Magistrate directed to decide the application within 30 days - [Paras 1-10].

Civil Law - Statutory Remedy - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Section 17 - Alternative Remedy - Borrowers aggrieved by measures taken under Section 13(4) by the secured creditor have the option to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal - Magistrate exercising powers under Section 14 is doing a ministerial act and does not possess discretionary power to refuse relief if statutory requirements are satisfied - Adjudication of issues like NPA classification or violation of RBI guidelines is outside the scope of Section 14 proceedings - Held - The law as laid down in Balkrishna Rama Tarle case clearly mandates that the Magistrate must assist the financial institution once the requirements of Section 14 are fulfilled - [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order of the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc. Application J No. 462 of 2026 dated 18.04.2026 quashed – Magistrate directed to adjudicate the application under Section 14 within 30 days.

Writ Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioners challenged building permission granted to unofficial respondents claiming rights over property in Survey No 74/8 whereas respondents claimed rights in Survey No 74/9 - Elaborate rival claims made regarding title and location of property - Commissioner granted permission based on prima facie title and possession - Held - High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot go into disputed questions of facts and title disputes - Competent Civil Court can only adjudicate disputed questions of facts and decide title - Writ petitions dismissed granting liberty to approach competent Civil Court - [Paras 11-21].

Municipal Law - Building Permission - GHMC Act 1955 - Section 388 - Challenge to building permission on ground of lack of title - Commissioner of GHMC has to consider only prima facie title and possession while granting building permission - Commissioner cannot adjudicate complex or disputed questions of title - Held - Unofficial respondents established prima facie title through registered sale deeds layout approvals and conveyance deeds - Grant of building permission valid - [Paras 13-17].

Writ Law - Interim Orders - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Status Quo - Petitioners contended that building permission was granted in violation of subsisting status quo order in earlier writ petition - Record disclosed status quo order pertained to land in Survey No 74/8 while building permission was granted for land in Survey No 74/9 - Held - Mere pendency of proceedings or complaints in the absence of any restraint order from a competent Court cannot constitute a ground for withholding building permission - GHMC justified in granting permission - [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court seeking appropriate relief – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Suit for Possession - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Sections 11 96 and 100 - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 27 and Articles 64 and 65 - Regular Second Appeal filed against concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession in favor of the plaintiffs - Plaintiffs sought possession of land based on ownership title while the defendant was recorded as Kabiz in the column of cultivation since the 1983-84 settlement - Defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation and the principle of res judicata as a previous suit filed by one of the plaintiffs was dismissed for default - High Court observed that the plaintiffs established ownership through jamabandi records whereas the defendant failed to plead or prove a case of adverse possession - High Court clarified that under the Limitation Act 1963 the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession once the plaintiff proves title - Further held that dismissal of a suit for default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC does not amount to an adjudication on merits and therefore does not operate as res judicata - Held - No perversity found in the findings of the courts below - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-31].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 27 and Articles 64 and 65 - Extinguishment of right - Suit for possession based on title - Shift in burden of proof - Comparison with Limitation Act 1908 - Under the old Act the plaintiff had to prove possession within twelve years - Under the 1963 Act once the plaintiff proves title the burden shifts to the defendant to prove they perfected title through adverse possession - Mere long possession does not constitute adverse possession - Held - In the absence of a plea of adverse possession by the defendant the suit based on title is maintainable and not barred by limitation - [Paras 23-26].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 and Order 9 Rule 8 - Adjudication on merits - Appellant argued that the dismissal of a prior suit in 1999 for default barred the present suit - Held - Dismissal for default is not a determination of the case on merits - Principle of res judicata applies only where there is a final adjudication on the merits of the dispute - Section 11 CPC is not attracted in cases of dismissal for default - [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings and decree of the lower courts affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Abduction - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 361, 363 and 366 - Acquittal - State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent accused of kidnapping a minor girl with intent to compel marriage - Prosecution alleged that the accused threatened to upload victim's photographs on the internet to coerce her into joining him - Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding that the victim voluntarily accompanied him - High Court re-appreciated evidence noting that the victim (PW3) in her cross-examination admitted the accused never slapped her and that she never gave him any photographs - Evidence revealed the victim travelled with the accused in public buses and visited crowded terminals at Anand Vihar and Haridwar without seeking help from police or public officials present - High Court observed such conduct is inconsistent with a person being taken under coercion or threat - Essential ingredients of taking or enticing under Section 363 IPC not established as there was no clear evidence of inducement or active participation by the accused in forming the victim's intention to leave her home - Held - No interference called for with the trial court's order of acquittal - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-19, 21-22].

Criminal Law - Sexual Harassment - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 12 - Essential Ingredients - Accused charged with sexual harassment under Section 12 POCSO Act - Victim (PW3) specifically deposed that the accused neither had sexual intercourse with her nor sexually assaulted or touched her in any manner - Allegation of threat to upload photographs was rendered speculative as the victim admitted she never provided such photographs to the accused - In the absence of reliable evidence establishing any act constituting sexual harassment within the meaning of Section 11 of the POCSO Act - Held - The offence under Section 12 is not made out beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 2, 15, 18, 20].

Criminal Procedure - Procedural Compliance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 232 - Non-compliance of hearing - Trial court omitted to conduct a hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC after questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC - High Court held that non-compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless it resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused - Respondent-accused did not raise any case of prejudice - Held - The trial proceedings were not vitiated by this technical omission - [Para 7].

Criminal Law - Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 361 - Distinction between taking and allowing to accompany - High Court applied the principle established in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras - Distinguished between the act of taking and merely allowing a minor of sufficient understanding to accompany a person - Where a minor voluntarily leaves the protection of a guardian without inducement or active participation by the accused - it cannot be said that the accused has taken the minor - Held - Prosecution failed to provide independent evidence corroborating threats or coercion - [Paras 13, 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Trial Court affirmed.

Writ Law - Security Cover - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Withdrawal of security cover - Petitioner an elected Member of Parliament Rajya Sabha challenged the withdrawal of state security cover immediately after leaving the ruling political party citing threat to life due to protests and posters branding him a traitor - State submitted that withdrawal was based on prior threat assessment by Security Review Committee conducted much before his resignation as he predominantly stayed outside the State - State further submitted that petitioner was already granted Y+ category CRPF security by Ministry of Home Affairs and State would provide local area deployment during his visits - Court observed that the decision to withdraw was taken earlier and protests did not establish threat to life and liberty ipso facto - Held - no further direction required as security concerns were adequately addressed by the Central and State Governments - petition disposed of - [Paras 1-6].

Writ Law - Threat Assessment - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Evaluation of threat perception - Petitioner claimed threat to life and liberty citing protests outside his residence and posters labelling him a traitor - Court held that mere protests or being branded a traitor would not establish threat to life and liberty ipso facto especially when protests were non violent - Held - subjective satisfaction of Security Review Committee based on actual threat assessment prevails - [Para 5].

Decision: Petition disposed of – No further directions issued as the petitioner has been provided Y+ security by the Central Government and the State Government has undertaken to provide local deployment during his visits to the State.