Civil Writ - Natural Resources – Tender-cum-Auction – Quarry Lease for Dunite – Cancellation of Tender – Successful bidders challenged cancellation of tender-cum-auction after being declared highest bidders and payment of EMD – Authorities cancelled tender on finding serious discrepancies in fixation of upset price leading to substantial loss to State revenue – Held: Allocation of natural resources is not a mere commercial transaction but a matter of public trust requiring maximisation of public revenue – State entitled to cancel tender where fixation of upset price was fundamentally flawed and against public interest – No vested right accrues merely by being declared successful bidder [Paras 15–18].

Tender Process – Upset Price – Fixation – Judicial Review – Enquiry revealed that only seigniorage fee was taken as upset price without considering actual market value and net profit of Dunite mineral – Resulted in potential loss of hundreds of crores to State exchequer – Held: When tender conditions or calculations are misapplied resulting in depletion of public revenue, courts must uphold corrective action by the State – Cancellation justified to protect public interest and revenue [Paras 8–10, 15–18].

Public Trust Doctrine – Natural Resources – Revenue Maximisation – State as trustee of mineral wealth obligated to secure best value for public resources – Reliance placed on Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. CEO – Tender cancellation upheld in furtherance of constitutional obligation to protect public wealth [Paras 16–18].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha – Principle reiterated that misinterpretation of tender conditions diminishing State revenue warrants judicial interference – Applied to uphold cancellation of tender involving mineral resources [Paras 17–18].

Refund – Earnest Money Deposit – Though writ petitions dismissed, petitioners entitled to refund of EMD with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of deposit till repayment – No direction for grant of lease [Para 19].

Environmental Protection – Mining Near Reserved Forest – Court directed that any future tender must strictly comply with Supreme Court directions prohibiting mining within one kilometre from reserved forest boundary as laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [Para 19].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Cancellation of tender-cum-auction upheld – Respondents directed to refund EMD with interest – Liberty granted to State to issue fresh tender in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to participate in fresh tender – No costs.

Public Procurement – Bid Submission Failure – Display of Incomplete Bids – Rule 19 KTPP Rules – Re-submission Attempt After Corrigendum – Petitioner submitted bids on 25.09.2024 and re-submitted revised bids on 27.09.2024 – Cancelled bids again on 30.09.2024 intending to upload final corrections, but failed to re-submit before deadline (17:30 hrs, 30.09.2024) – Alleged non-compliance with Rule 19 in not showing bids as “DRAFT” – Held: Petitioner’s cancelled bids were correctly shown as “DRAFTS” on the portal – No procedural impropriety found – Incomplete bids rightly excluded from evaluation [Paras 11.1–11.5]

Judicial Review – Procedural Irregularity – Locus After Dismissal of Earlier Petition – Abuse of Process – Petitioner previously challenged corrigendum and failed – Present petitions relate to alleged exclusion of bids due to portal failure – Held: Issue of bid status as DRAFT not considered earlier – Petitioner has locus – However, failure to upload revised bids before deadline is attributable to petitioner’s own conduct – No relief warranted [Paras 10.1–10.4, 11.6]

Tender Law – Onus on Bidder – Last Date and Time Compliance – Rule 15(4)(b) – Statutory obligation lies on tenderers to ensure bid submission within time – System required bid cancellation before corrections, which petitioner failed to re-submit – Held: Bid remained incomplete – Incomplete bid cannot be considered for evaluation [Para 11.6]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – No violation of Rule 19 of KTPP Rules found – Petitioner failed to re-submit corrected bids before cut-off – Bids remained incomplete (DRAFT) and were validly excluded – No costs.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Identification – Conviction set aside – Accused-appellants convicted under Sections 364A and 120B IPC for alleged abduction of victim Anwar Khan and demand of ransom – Trial court sentenced all appellants to life imprisonment – On appeal, High Court found that prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Identification of accused solely in court without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) inadmissible – All accused allegedly unknown were seen at police station before identification – No material corroboration of in-court identification [Paras 34, 31.1, 31.2]

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility under Section 65B – Call Detail Records (CDRs) and mobile evidence – CDRs and CAFs relied upon by prosecution were unaccompanied by Section 65B certificate – Investigating Officer’s oral assertions on electronic data inadmissible – Held: Mandatory non-compliance with Section 65B renders CDRs and related electronic evidence legally inadmissible [Paras 30.6, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Violation of Section 313 CrPC – Accused not confronted with incriminating material during examination under Section 313 – High Court found this to be fatal – Serious prejudice caused to accused – Conviction based on evidence not properly put to accused is unsustainable in law [Paras 32.2, 32.3]

Circumstantial Evidence – Flaws in Investigation – No recovery of cot or rope – FIR not exhibited – Witness testimonies inconsistent and mostly hearsay – No independent public witness examined – Doctor (PW-8) found no visible injuries – Witnesses admitted to seeing accused at police station prior to trial – Allegations of ransom based on uncorroborated statements – Held: Prosecution failed to prove ingredients of Section 364A IPC or conspiracy under Section 120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 30.1–30.9, 33–36]

Judgment – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364A and 120B IPC set aside – Appellants in custody ordered to be released – Others already on bail – Held: Trial Court’s conviction unsustainable in law and facts – Failure of prosecution to establish guilt – Appreciation of evidence flawed [Paras 36–40]

Decision: Conviction and sentence set aside – All appeals allowed – Accused in custody to be released unless wanted in any other case – Bail bonds of appellants on bail discharged – Acknowledgement of pro bono service by Amicus Curiae Ms. Vaishnavi Singh [Paras 38–42]

Criminal Law  – Quashing of FIR – Compromise – FIR registered under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Parties settled dispute voluntarily without coercion – Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) found compromise to be genuine and all parties to be part of the settlement – Complainant no longer interested in pursuing the matter – Held: Dispute was personal in nature with no element of moral turpitude or heinousness – Petitioners were mostly young and continuation of proceedings would be oppressive and serve no useful purpose – FIR and consequential proceedings quashed subject to cost [Paras 1, 5, 9–10].

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS – Principles Governing Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Reiterated that in non-heinous, personal disputes, High Court may quash FIRs where parties have resolved their issues – Referred to Parbatbhai Aahir and Ramgopal v. State of M.P. – Held: Where possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, Court justified in exercising inherent powers [Paras 7–8].

Decision: FIR No. 113 dated 09.08.2024 registered at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar and all consequential proceedings quashed in view of compromise dated 02.06.2025 – Petition allowed – Petitioners directed to deposit ₹7,500 each with DHFWS, Panchkula within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – “Account Blocked” – Cheques issued by petitioners after Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) had commenced and company accounts taken over by IRP – Cheques returned with remark “ACCOUNT BLOCKED” – Held: Dishonour due to account block caused by statutory moratorium under IBC does not amount to dishonour for insufficiency of funds – Essential ingredients under Section 138 NI Act not met – Offence not made out [Paras 70, 74–79, 81].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Moratorium – Effect on Prosecution – Moratorium declared under Section 14 IBC in April 2019 – Liquidator appointed in December 2019 – Cheques dated September 2020 dishonoured in October 2020 – Held: Directors had lost control over company accounts – No valid authority to issue cheques – Vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act cannot be imposed where principal offence under Section 138 is not made out [Paras 66–68, 71].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Continuation of proceedings against directors where company is under liquidation – Held: Cheques issued post-moratorium and account dishonour due to statutory prohibition – Complaint and summoning order not sustainable – Proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 72–73, 82].

Decision: All three complaints under Section 138 NI Act and summoning orders dated 19.01.2021 (CC No. 90/2021), 21.01.2021 (CC No. 113/2021), and 22.01.2021 (CC No. 117/2021) are quashed – Proceedings against petitioners are untenable as offence under Section 138 is not made out due to “Account Blocked” status caused by CIRP and liquidation process – Petitions allowed.

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Suit for cancellation of sale deed – The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit in 2021 seeking declaration and permanent injunction to set aside a sale deed dated 18.06.2008, alleging it was based on a forged Power of Attorney – The plaintiff admitted knowledge of the sale deed as early as 2009-10, issued a legal notice in 2012, and filed a prior suit in 2013 for the same relief, which was dismissed on 29.03.2014 – The present suit was filed on 05.07.2021, more than 13 years after the sale deed and over 11 years after initial knowledge – Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act prescribe a three-year period for suits seeking declaration or cancellation of an instrument from when the right to sue first accrues or facts entitling relief become known – The Trial Court erred in dismissing the Order VII Rule 11 application, holding that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence – The High Court found that the plaintiff's own averments and documents clearly showed the suit was ex facie barred by limitation, without any plea of concealed fraud under Section 17 of the Limitation Act – The power under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is mandatory when the plaint itself discloses the suit is barred by law – The Trial Court's finding was illegal, without jurisdiction, and perverse – The suit is manifestly hopeless and an abuse of process – The High Court held that no evidence was needed as the bar of limitation was evident from the plaint itself – The impugned order was set aside – The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and Civil Suit No. RCS 658-A/2021 was rejected as barred by limitation [Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 58 & 59 – Commencement of Limitation Period – Constructive Notice – For a suit seeking declaration or cancellation of an instrument, the period of limitation is three years from the date the right to sue first accrues or when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside first become known to him – When a document is required to be registered and is registered, the whole world is deemed to have constructive notice of its execution and registration from the date of registration (Explanation I to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882) – Knowledge of execution and registration for limitation purposes starts from the date of registration – The plaintiff's awareness of the sale deed and mutation entries in 2009-2010, followed by a legal notice in 2012 and a prior suit in 2013, unequivocally established knowledge of the cause of action well beyond the three-year limitation period for the suit filed in 2021 – The suit was clearly barred by limitation [Paras 18, 19, 25, 26, 37, 40].

Civil Procedure Code – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Scope of Inquiry – The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to be decided solely on the basis of averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith – No amount of evidence can be looked into at this stage – The issues on the merit of the matter are not within the realm of the court at this stage – The court should not enter into a disputed question of fact or law – If the plaint itself shows the suit is barred by any law, it must be rejected – The Trial Court's finding that limitation was a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence was erroneous, as the bar was evident from the plaintiff's own pleadings and documents [Paras 15, 16, 29, 34].

Res Judicata – Code of Civil Procedure – Prior Dismissal of Suit – A prior Civil Suit No. 16-A/2013 seeking identical relief (cancellation of the same Sale Deed) was dismissed on 29.03.2014 on grounds of non-payment of court fee and jurisdictional issues – The dismissal of the earlier suit, even on technical grounds, reinforces that no fresh cause of action accrued for the subsequent suit – The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental legal principle that bars re-litigation of claims already decided by a competent court, ensuring finality in litigation and preventing harassment – The present suit is not maintainable as it touches the doctrine of res judicata [Paras 2, 12, 31, 32, 33, 39].

Specific Relief Act – Section 34 Proviso – Suit for Declaration without Seeking Possession – The suit was also barred by law for want of claiming relief for possession, as provided in the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – The plaintiff admitted not being in possession of the suit land in a complaint to the Divisional Commissioner – Therefore, a mere declaration without seeking consequential relief of possession is not maintainable [Para 35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned order dated 04.07.2025 is set aside – The application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed, and Civil Suit No. RCS 658-A/2021 is rejected, being barred by limitation – No order as to costs [Paras 41, 42].

Employees Provident Fund – Wage Splitting – Artificial Structuring to Evade PF Liability – 7A Determination Upheld – Respondent institutions restructured salary components to cap Basic plus D.A. at ₹6,500 while paying higher gross wages – Provident Fund Authority found deliberate design to avoid statutory contributions – Tribunal erroneously set aside the order on the sole ground that declared basic wages were within the ceiling – Held: Authority rightly applied substance over form test and found long-standing, uniform pattern of artificial wage structuring – Statutory contributions are payable on actual wages and not on labels assigned by employer [Paras 8–14].

Welfare Legislation – Purpose of PF Act – Interpretation in Favour of Beneficiaries – EPF Act is a social welfare legislation to ensure security of employees – Deferred wages cannot be denied through creative salary structuring – Regular allowances shown as exclusions cannot defeat statutory mandate – Employer’s conduct must be judged by effect, not form [Paras 9–11].

Section 7A Inquiry – Validity – Record-Based Assessment – Authority relied on statutory documents like Form 11, challans, Form 16, salary registers – Found consistent pattern of wage splitting across years and employees – Detailed, account-wise and employee-wise calculations revealed suppression of PF liability – Held: Tribunal failed to consider this material and adopted a narrow, ceiling-based approach without examining wage structuring [Paras 12–14].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Interference with Reasoned Administrative Orders – High Court held that the Tribunal failed to apply binding precedents including Regional PF Commissioner v. Vivekanand Vidyamandir – Found that employer’s conduct amounted to evasion of statutory obligation – Restored well-reasoned 7A order [Paras 5, 15–18].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Order of PF Appellate Tribunal dated 19.10.2016 set aside – Original order under Section 7A dated 30.10.2014 restored – PF dues of ₹2,91,765 upheld against respondent [Paras 16–18].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Suppression of Material Facts – Domestic Violence Proceedings – Overlapping Jurisdiction – Family Court dismissed wife’s maintenance petition solely on the ground that she suppressed the fact of receiving interim maintenance under the DV Act – High Court held that mere non-production of interim maintenance order cannot result in outright dismissal of a petition filed under beneficial legislation – At the highest, such conduct may invite costs but not rejection of claim [Paras 8–16].

Maintenance under Multiple Statutes – No Bar – Adjustment or Set-off – Wife is legally entitled to seek maintenance under different enactments such as Section 125 CrPC, DV Act and HMA – Law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha mandates disclosure and adjustment of amounts awarded in earlier proceedings – Held: Family Court erred in treating the filing of successive proceedings as impermissible [Paras 12–15, 22–27].

Duty of Court – Consideration of Evidence – Failure of Husband to Lead Evidence – Respondent-husband neither entered the witness box nor adduced evidence to establish wife’s independent income or inability to maintain her – Family Court failed to consider settled principle that an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of maintaining his wife – Findings held to be contrary to law [Paras 17–21].

Beneficial Legislation – Approach of Court – Maintenance provisions are social justice measures – Courts must adopt a pragmatic and humane approach rather than hyper-technical view – Non-disclosure of interim maintenance order should not defeat substantive rights of a deserted wife [Paras 15–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Improper Exercise by Family Court – Family Court gave undue weight to alleged suppression and failed to adjudicate entitlement and quantum of maintenance on merits – Such approach warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 28–29].

Decision – Revision application allowed – Impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for fresh consideration on merits with direction to adjust maintenance already granted in DV proceedings – Proceedings to be completed within stipulated time [Paras 29–31].

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Due Diligence Test – Scope and Applicability – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 inserted by 2002 Amendment does not have universal application to every amendment sought after commencement of trial – Court holds that applicability of due diligence test depends on nature of amendment sought and surrounding circumstances – Plain and rigid application of proviso would defeat main provision which retains phrase “at any stage of the proceedings” – Held: Proviso has limited role and cannot control main provision in all post-trial amendment applications [Paras 13–17, 29–31, 59–61].

Amendment After Commencement of Trial – Subsequent Events – Relief of Possession – Plaintiffs sought amendment 10 years after suit and post commencement of trial to plead dispossession during pendency of suit and seek possession – Such amendment based on subsequent events falls within recognised category where due diligence test need not strictly apply – Held: Amendment necessary to decide real controversy and avoid multiplicity of litigation [Paras 25(c), 25(d), 35–36].

Object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Avoidance of Multiplicity of Litigation – Main object of Rule 17 remains determination of real questions in controversy and avoidance of multiple proceedings – Proviso intended only to curb mala fide or dilatory amendments – Liberal construction still applies in deserving cases – Procedural law to be interpreted to advance justice [Paras 18–23, 31–33].

Delay in Seeking Amendment – Limitation – Delay of 10 years from filing of suit not fatal – Relevant test is whether relief sought by amendment is barred by limitation on date of application – Amendment seeking possession held within limitation under Articles 64 or 65 of Limitation Act – Mere length of delay cannot be sole ground for rejection [Paras 37–42].

Amendment Contrary to Admission – Effect – Amendment allegedly contrary to admission in cross-examination regarding date of dispossession – Court not required to examine merits or correctness of proposed amendment at amendment stage – Admission not conclusive and can be explained during trial – Amendment does not nullify admission; issue remains matter of evidence [Paras 43–49].

Nature of Suit – Change of Relief – Change from declaration and injunction to declaration and possession does not amount to change in nature of suit – Change in relief distinct from change in cause of action – Basic structure of suit remains intact – Amendment permissible even if relief changes, provided foundational facts remain same [Paras 50–56].

Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Even where due diligence test not satisfied, Court can invoke inherent powers to permit amendment in interest of justice to prevent abuse of process – Procedural provisions cannot limit inherent powers of Court [Para 34].

Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226 and 227 – Trial Court erred in treating proviso as absolute bar and in rejecting amendment mechanically on ground of delay and commencement of trial – Interference warranted to correct jurisdictional error [Paras 62–63].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 06.09.2025 rejecting amendment application set aside – Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.7,000/- by plaintiffs – Defendants permitted to file additional written statement – Issue of date of dispossession left open to be decided on evidence.