Civil Law – Commercial Suit - Jurisdiction – Commercial Suit Refiled Before Civil Court – Misuse of Procedure – Plaint Returned – Plaintiffs withdrew earlier commercial suit without liberty and refiled same cause before civil court adding non-related parties – Court held this was a deliberate attempt to bypass Commercial Courts Act – Only parties receiving notices could seek relief – Civil court lacked jurisdiction – Impugned order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC set aside [Paras 3–11]. 
 
Misleading Citations – City Civil Judge Relied on Non-Existent SC Judgments – Serious Concern Raised – Learned Judge cited fictitious Supreme Court decisions to justify jurisdiction 
– Neither party referred such judgments – Matter referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate action against judicial officer [Paras 5, 10, 12]. 
 
Remand – Order VII Rule 10A CPC – Procedural Opportunity Granted – Plaint returned to plaintiffs but with liberty to file application under Order VII Rule 10A(2) – Direction to parties to appear before trial court for further proceedings – If no application filed, plaint to be returned [Para 11]. 
 
Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Plaint returned for lack of jurisdiction – Matter remitted for compliance under Order VII Rule 10A(2) CPC – Copy of order to be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice for inquiry into judicial conduct [Paras 11–12]. 
 

Matrimonial Law – Recovery of Istridhan - Patrimony and Gold Ornaments – Entrustment Not Proved – Claim Dismissed – Wife alleged entrustment of 50 sovereigns of gold and ₹3 lakhs at the time of marriage – Court found inconsistencies and contradictions in pleadings and oral evidence – Delay of 8 years in raising claim also viewed as improbable – Held: No sufficient material to overturn Family Court's finding rejecting claim for patrimony and gold [Paras 6-12].

Maintenance – Financial Capacity of Husband Established – Award of ₹10,000 per Month Upheld – Husband claimed petitioner had income from running a shop, but no evidence was produced – Documents like bio-data and wedding invitation indicated respondent's affluent background – Held: Maintenance at ₹10,000/month is reasonable – No interference warranted [Paras 13-14].

Arrears of Maintenance – Interest Awarded – Interim maintenance ordered during pendency of appeal was not paid – Court ordered that all arrears shall bear interest at 9% per annum – Held: Petitioner entitled to realise maintenance arrears with interest in accordance with law [Para 15].

Final Decision – Appeals Disposed – Family Court judgment affirmed – Wife allowed to recover arrears of maintenance with 9% interest – No other relief granted [Para 15].

Criminal Contempt – Allegation against Sitting Judges – Scandalizing the Court – Contemnor accused Judges of accepting bribes for dismissal of his writ petition – Complaint addressed to the President of India – Held: Allegation scandalizes the Court and tends to lower its authority within meaning of Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act – Contemnor's admission of authorship and contents of complaint noted – No justification found for demand of covering letter [Paras 1-4, 8-9].

Judicial Integrity – Maintenance of Public Confidence – High Court reiterated importance of preserving dignity and authority of the judiciary – Referred to judgments emphasizing that even unproven allegations that create disaffection against the judiciary constitute contempt – Court found contemnor’s conduct obstructive to the administration of justice [Paras 5-7].

Sentence – Leniency Due to Age – Considering that contemnor was of old age and had no prior contempt history, Court imposed only a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default sentence of one week simple imprisonment – Directed compliance by Senior Registrar [Paras 9-11].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Husband's Disinterest in Marital Relationship – Divorce Granted - The wife alleged that the husband was indifferent towards family life, abstained from conjugal relations, and was engrossed in superstitious and spiritual practices – Evidence proved that despite earlier reconciliation, the husband continued neglecting the petitioner’s marital rights, causing severe mental trauma – The Court held that persistent neglect, emotional abandonment, and forced adherence to superstitious practices amounted to cruelty – Decree of divorce upheld [Paras 6-15]. 
 
Mental Cruelty – Assessment Requires Flexible Approach - Relying on Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni [AIR 2023 SC 4186] and Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila.P [2025 (2) KHC 33], the Court reiterated that mental cruelty is subjective and must be assessed case-wise – Courts must adopt a liberal and contextsensitive approach, especially where the wife seeks divorce due to mental agony caused by neglect or deprivation of conjugal rights [Paras 12-14]. 
 
Family Court Finding – No Interference Warranted – Marriage Irretrievably Broken - The Family Court rightly concluded that the marriage was irretrievably broken and the parties lacked mutual trust and affection – The High Court found no perversity or misapplication of law and refused to interfere with the decree of divorce [Para 15]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Dismissed - Matrimonial Appeal dismissed – Divorce granted by Family Court sustained – Parties directed to bear their own costs [Para 15]. 
 

Criminal Law - Murder  – Eyewitness Testimony by Relative – Credibility Upheld – Conviction Confirmed - PW-10 Ram Pal, brother-in-law of the deceased, was an eyewitness – Court held that being a related witness does not by itself make him untrustworthy – His presence at the scene was natural, his testimony consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Ocular version matched with post-mortem findings [Paras 20, 24].

FIR Delay – No Prejudice Caused – Explained and Justified - FIR was registered within a reasonable time after the occurrence between 8:15-8:45 a.m.; statement recorded by 11:00 a.m., and special report reached Magistrate by 4:00 p.m. – Court held that delay was not inordinate and did not weaken prosecution case [Para 21].

Defence Argument – Bloodstained Clothes Not Seized – Not Sufficient to Discredit Witness – Court held that non-seizure of bloodstained clothes of eyewitness Ram Pal was an investigative lapse – But it did not negate his presence or the credibility of his testimony – Eyewitness account supported by medical and ballistic evidence [Para 23].

Medical vs Ocular Evidence – No Contradiction Found – Court held that minor discrepancies in wound description were not fatal – Post-mortem report corroborated injuries caused by gunshot – No inconsistency between medical opinion and eyewitness account [Para 24].

Motive – Prior Enmity Well Established – Conviction Justified - Prosecution established motive of revenge as deceased had been a co-accused in the murder case of Amar Singh’s brother – FIR records confirmed Ram Partap (related to deceased) was convicted for murder of Om Parkash (brother of Amar Singh) – Motive further corroborated credibility of prosecution story [Para 25].

Ballistic Evidence – Pistol Recovery and Forensic Match – Weapon Linked to Crime - Recovered country-made pistol was found to be functional – FSL confirmed fired cartridge and lead slug matched the weapon – Forensic evidence conclusively connected Amar Singh with the firearm used in the murder [Para 26].

Decision – Conviction Upheld – Life Imprisonment and Arms Act Sentence Affirmed – High Court found evidence of guilt overwhelming – Appeal dismissed – Appellant directed to surrender and serve remaining sentence [Para 27].

Land Acquisition – Applicability of Section 11 and 11A – Girnar Traders (3) Applied – Challenge Fails – Petitioners challenged acquisition proceedings on the ground of lapsing under Section 11A and lack of prior government approval under Section 11 – Court held that acquisition under MRTP Act is a complete code and amounts to legislation by incorporation, thus amendments to the Land Acquisition Act in 1984, including Section 11A, do not apply – Held: Challenge to acquisition fails on these grounds [Paras 24-53].

Prior Government Approval – Mandatory for Valid Award – Award Held Void –

Despite denying applicability of Section 11, State tried to establish compliance – Evidence revealed contradictory affidavits, manipulation, and lack of prior approval from competent authority before issuing individual awards – Held: Award dated 07/04/2015 issued without required approval is void and non-est – Acquisition proceedings vitiated [Paras 54-71].

Lapsing of Acquisition – Delay Beyond Statutory Period – Proceedings Held

Lapsed – Awards made long after prescribed period under Section 11A of the Old Act and Section 25 of the New Act – State failed to provide consistent and credible explanation regarding timing and validity of awards – Held:

Acquisition stands lapsed for breach of statutory time limits [Paras 72-73].

Relief under New Land Acquisition Act – Entitlement to Developed Land –

Direction Issued – Petitioners held entitled to 20% of developed land under Serial No. 3 of the Second Schedule to the New Act and supporting GRs – State directed to extend benefit accordingly [Para 74].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Impugned acquisition proceedings quashed – Direction issued to allot 20% developed land to Petitioners – No costs awarded [Para 75].

Murder – Role in Homicide and Disposal of Body – Bail Granted on Parity – Petitioner accused of participating in strangulation and disposal of body along with co-accused – Co-accused already granted bail – CCTV footage placed him at scene but no direct evidence of act of killing – Court found no recovery of weapon and only one out of 36 witnesses examined in over three years – Held: Bail granted on grounds of parity and prolonged incarceration [Paras 12, 20-22].

Evidentiary Basis – CCTV and CDR Analysis – Not Conclusive for Denial of Bail – Prosecution relied on CCTV footage and call records to establish presence – Court noted that footage merely suggested presence but not specific act of murder – Petitioner in custody for 3 years 3 months with no prior criminal antecedents – Held: Evidence can be tested during trial; not sufficient to deny bail at this stage [Paras 16-21].

Parity and Delay in Trial – Bail Considered Justified – Co-accused with identical roles (Afzal Ansari, Mohd. Abrar, Savjal Ansari) were granted bail – Only one prosecution witness examined out of 36 – Held: Delay and parity justified enlargement on bail with suitable conditions [Paras 20-22].

Final Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing bond of ₹30,000/- with conditions including regular police station attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and travel restrictions [Paras 22-25].

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement – Civil Servant Deputed to Army Postal Service – Retirement While on Deputation – Denied – The petitioner, holding a civil post with the Department of Posts and later commissioned in APS, sought voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A without repatriation – Tribunal held and High Court affirmed that such retirement from APS without repatriation was impermissible – Held: As petitioner had not completed 30 years of service required under Rule 48, he was not eligible for benefits under Rule 67 or relevant OMs – Repatriation to parent department was mandatory prior to voluntary retirement [Paras 23-27].

Interpretation of Pension Rules – Retirement Under Rule 48-A Not Covered by DOT OM – Claim Rejected – Court held that Rule 67 read with DOT OM dated 05.09.1989 applied only to cases falling under Rule 48 (i.e., on completion of 30 years of service) – Petitioner, having completed only 28 years of service, was not eligible under the said OM – Held: Retirement did not satisfy conditions for direct pension authorization by APS as borrowing department [Paras 25-27].

Jurisdiction and Departmental Authority – Competent Authority to Release Pension – Department of Posts Identified – Although initially permitted to retire directly from APS, subsequent clarification by Army and Posts authorities corrected the procedural error – Held: Department of Posts, being the cadre-controlling authority, was responsible for disbursing retiral benefits [Paras 18-20, 27].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court declined to interfere with Tribunal’s findings – Petitioner not entitled to claim ex-serviceman status or ECHS benefits – Ordered: Writ petition dismissed with no costs [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Law - Exemption from Personal Appearance – Routine Rejection of Section 317 CrPC Petitions – Held Arbitrary – Trial Court rejected exemption petition on grounds of repeated past defaults – High Court held that discretionary powers must be exercised judicially, especially when supported by justifiable medical reasons – Rejection without considering circumstances was arbitrary [Paras 1.4, 11–15]. 
 
Non-Bailable Warrant – Issuance Without Application of Mind – Set Aside – Appellant appeared same day after filing petition for exemption and sought recall of NBW – Trial Court declined by labeling conduct as dilatory – High Court cited Supreme Court precedents (Inder Mohan Goswami, Satender Kumar Antil, Sherif Ahmed) and quashed warrant for violating individual liberty under Article 21 [Paras 7–10, 22]. 
 
Discretion under CrPC – Must be Judicial, Not Mechanical – Courts Directed to Exercise Care – Reiterating Maneka Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, Court emphasized that absence due to illness must be considered liberally – Special Court’s repeated rejection of Section 317 and 70(2) petitions held contrary to binding principles [Paras 5–6, 11, 14, 21]. 
 
Recording of Evidence in Absence of Accused – Section 273 and Exceptions – Court Clarified Scope – Referencing Atma Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Court noted trial can proceed in absence of accused under Sections 299, 317 CrPC and Section 16(5) of NIA Act – Trial not automatically vitiated due to absence if alternate procedural safeguards exist [Paras 16–20]. 
 
 Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned orders dated 30.01.2025 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 73 and 76 of 2025 set aside – Non-bailable warrant recalled – Appellant directed to strictly comply with bail conditions and cooperate with trial – Special Court cautioned against mechanical rejection of exemption petitions [Para 22].