Matrimonial Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Interest on Maintenance – Mandatory under Precedent – Review Allowed - The applicants sought review of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 on the ground that the Court failed to apply the binding precedent of Prakash vs. Vithabai, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1487, which mandates award of interest on arrears of maintenance – The Court held that failure to apply the said binding precedent amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record – The bar under Section 362 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under Section 125 CrPC as per Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor (2020) 13 SCC 172 – Review allowed and interest @9% per annum awarded on maintenance from 07.06.2024 till realization [Paras 5-28].

Review – Error Apparent on Record – Non-consideration of Binding Precedent – The Court held that overlooking binding judgments, including Prakash (supra), amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and warrants review, particularly in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC which are quasi-civil in nature [Paras 17-24].

Maintainability – Review in Maintenance Proceedings – Embargo under Section 362 CrPC Relaxed – The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC does not bar review in Section 125 CrPC proceedings owing to their social welfare character – Reference made to Sanjeev Kapoor (supra) and Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72 [Paras 15-24].

Decision – Review Allowed – Interest Granted – The Court reviewed the judgment dated 29.11.2024 and directed Respondent No.1 to pay interest @9% per annum on the maintenance amount awarded from 07.06.2024 till the date of realization – Rest of the judgment remained unaltered [Paras 27-28].

Service Law - Reservation in Promotion – Quantifiable Data – Constitutionality Upheld – Petitioners challenged reservation policy dated 07.10.2023 alleging non-compliance with requirements under Article 16(4A) – Held: Haryana Government had undertaken a detailed cadre-wise and group-wise study demonstrating inadequacy of SC representation – State complied with the constitutional mandate and Supreme Court guidelines in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh – Reservation upheld [Paras 10.1-10.5, 12].

Delegation of Power – Promotion Criteria – No Unlawful Delegation Found – Allegation that power under Article 16(4A) was delegated to Departmental Promotion Committees – Rejected – Held: Instructions merely implemented a State policy already backed by quantified data; decision-making authority not abdicated [Paras 6, 10.5].

Creamy Layer Exclusion – Not Applicable to SCs in Promotion – Petitioners argued for application of creamy layer exclusion to SC candidates – Rejected – Held: As per binding precedents including Jarnail Singh and B.K. Pavitra, creamy layer concept not applicable to SCs in the context of promotional reservations [Paras 4.2, 6].

Administrative Efficiency – Article 335 Compliance – Promotion Conditional on Eligibility – Petitioners contended that promotion policy violates Article 335 – Held: Instructions mandated only eligible SC candidates for promotion and maintained performance-based probation – Efficiency of administration safeguarded [Paras 7, 11].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Instructions Upheld – Court held that the State of Haryana fulfilled constitutional preconditions for granting reservation in promotions – No constitutional infirmity found – Petitions dismissed, validating the 07.10.2023 instructions [Paras 10-13].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Criminal Negligence – Driving at High Speed – Mere Speed Insufficient to Establish Rashness – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279/304A IPC for allegedly driving at high speed and causing death of two pedestrians – No eyewitness deposed that driving was rash or negligent – All witnesses only testified to “high speed” – No evidence about exact speed or how high speed alone caused loss of control – Held: High speed alone does not constitute rash or negligent driving in absence of supporting evidence [Paras 23–27].

Evidence – Mechanical Inspection and Seizure Memo – Gaps in Prosecution Case – No Direct Link Between Damage and Driver’s Conduct – Inspection reports showed severe left-side damage and possible tyre burst – Mechanical expert not examined – Unclear whether damage predated accident – Court held that burden was on prosecution to rule out mechanical failure – Prosecution failed to establish cause of loss of control [Paras 31–34].

Presumption and Res Ipsa Loquitor – Not Automatically Attracted in Criminal Cases – Inappropriate to Infer Guilt from Accident Alone – Court held that invoking res ipsa loquitor without establishing foundational facts or eliminating alternate causes (like tyre burst) was impermissible in criminal context – Rashness cannot be presumed from accident and damages alone [Paras 12, 36–38].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Findings Based on No Evidence – ASJ and MM failed to consider material inconsistencies, mechanical issues, and standards of proof in criminal law – Court held interference under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. justified to prevent miscarriage of justice – Conviction and sentence set aside, petitioner acquitted [Paras 19–21, 35–42].

Criminal Procedure – Challenge to Cognizance – Revision Already Dismissed – 482 Application Dismissed – The applicants sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 01.03.2024 on the ground of jurisdiction, alleging that the FIR was beyond territorial jurisdiction and constituted a second FIR – The Court found that the challenge had already been rejected in revision by a coordinate bench on merits and the dismissal had attained finality – The plea was not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-19]. 
 
Absconding     Accused     –     Non-cooperation     in Investigation – Inherent Powers Not Invokable – The Court held that the applicants, having absconded throughout the investigation and failed to appear despite issuance of non-bailable warrants and Red Corner Notices, were disentitled to invoke the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot be used to circumvent the regular criminal process [Paras 19-21]. 
 
Inherent Powers – Discretion to be Exercised Sparingly – Petition Rejected – The Court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly and cannot be granted to those who flout court processes – Applicants’ conduct of avoiding investigation and trial disentitled them from relief [Paras 20-22]. 
 
Decision – Application Dismissed – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Court refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings or the cognizance order challenged by the applicants [Para 22]. 
 

NDPS Bail – Prima Facie Evidence – Bail Rejected – The petitioner challenged her custody on the ground that her statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible and the seizure was procedurally defective – The Court held that independent of the Section 67 statement, there were sufficient prima facie materials including parcel bearing petitioner’s name and number, deleted images of the parcel from her mobile, and links to other accused – Bail refused considering seriousness of offence and applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 3-6]. 
 
Section 52A Compliance – Not a Ground for Bail at Pre-trial Stage – Relying on NCB vs. Md. Kasif, the Court reiterated that compliance lapses under Section 52A NDPS Act, including inventory certification and sample taking, are procedural and to be tested at trial – Such irregularities alone do not justify bail at the pretrial stage [Paras 5-6]. 
 
Evidence Act Compliance – Hash Values and Digital Certificates – Left Open for Trial – The petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to file proper digital certificates under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam for Call Detail Records and mobile forensic reports – The Court held that such objections pertain to evidentiary appreciation and must be adjudicated during trial, not at bail stage [Paras 6]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Considering the petitioner’s role, prima facie evidence and involvement in an international drug racket, bail prayer rejected – Trial court directed to expedite the trial after splitting the record against absconding accused [Paras 6-8]. 
 

Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - Applicants had undergone pre-trial incarceration for over 13 years without conclusion of the trial – The Court held that such prolonged detention amounts to pre-trial punishment and violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial was stalled due to multiple pending applications and indefinite delay – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-8, 16-28]. 
 Parity Principle – Identical Role as Co-Accused – Bail Allowed - The Applicants demonstrated that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail earlier – The Court accepted the plea of parity and held that denial of bail in such circumstances would amount to unequal treatment [Paras 4.2, 28]. 
 
Medical Grounds – Consideration under HIV Act – Applicant No.2's Bail Supported - Applicant No.2, being HIV positive, invoked Section 34(2) of the HIV Act which mandates priority in disposal of cases concerning HIV positive persons – The Court took judicial notice of his health condition while granting bail [Paras 4.3, 28]. 
 
Bail Principles – Article 21 – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – Reiterated - Relying on settled precedents, including Satender Kumar Antil, Maneka Gandhi, and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, the Court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception – Long incarceration without trial violates constitutional guarantees of liberty [Paras 12-17]. 
 
Decision – Bail Granted - Applicants released on bail subject to strict conditions to ensure presence at trial and prevent interference with the evidence – Application allowed [Paras 2830]. 
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Valid Loan Transaction and Dishonoured Cheque – Conviction Upheld - The petitioner contended that no loan was availed and the cheque was misused – The Court upheld concurrent findings of both courts holding that the accused had availed Rs.1 crore as loan and had issued cheque (Ex.P4) and acknowledgment (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3) – Defence that cheque was issued to one Santhosh for a smaller loan was found unsubstantiated and lacking in evidence – Conviction confirmed [Paras 10-19]. 
 
Evidence – Admission by Accused – Presumption not Rebutted - The accused admitted execution of crucial documents including Ex.P2 (consideration receipt), Ex.P3 (confirmation of balance), and Ex.P4 (dishonoured cheque) – No independent evidence was led to prove the defence that the cheque was given to Santhosh – Admission of execution and failure to examine Santhosh undermined the defence – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. 
Act stood unrebutted [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Power of Attorney – Substitution of GPA Holder – No Illegality - The petitioner contended that PW1 lacked authority due to subsequent substitution of GPA holder – The Court held that Ex.P1 continued to be valid as no material showed its withdrawal – PW1 was competent to depose on behalf of the complainant – The contention was rejected [Paras 11, 17-18]. 
 
Revision – Limited Scope – No Perversity Found – Dismissed - The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent illegality or perversity – Since both courts properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence, no interference was warranted – Revision dismissed [Para 19]. 
 
 

Consumer Rights – Service Charge in Restaurants – Guidelines under CPA, 2019 – Upheld – CCPA guidelines prohibiting mandatory levy of service charge held valid – The Court upheld the guidelines issued by CCPA barring mandatory collection of service charge, observing that such charges cannot be imposed coercively, and must be voluntary – Held: Such mandatory collection is deceptive, amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of CPA, and violates consumer rights – CCPA empowered under Section 18(2)(l) to issue binding guidelines in the interest of consumers [Paras 83-85, 174(i), 174(iii)(iv)]. 
 
Freedom of Trade – Article 19(1)(g) vs. Consumer Interest – Reasonable Restriction – Upheld – The guidelines were found not to infringe Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed reasonable restrictions in public interest – Court held the limitation on the restaurant’s right to impose service charges was proportional and constitutional – Larger interest of consumers prevailed over business interests of establishments [Paras 83-85, 174(ii)]. 
 
Contract Law – Unconscionable Contracts – Service Charge Clause – Invalid – Even if a customer accepts service charge knowing its inclusion on the menu, the resulting contract is not enforceable – Court ruled the unequal bargaining power and lack of real choice renders such contracts void as unfair and unconscionable under the CPA [Paras 99-101]. 
 
Statutory Backing – Guidelines of CCPA – Binding Nature – Upheld – The Court held that guidelines issued under Section 18(2)(l) of the CPA, 2019 are binding and not merely advisory – The statutory scheme envisages enforcement of such guidelines through penal provisions under Section 88 of the Act [Paras 73-75, 136-138, 174(i)]. 
 
Misleading Practices – Terminology and Lack of Transparency – Service 
Charge Illegal – The use of terms like “levy” and “service charge” was held to be misleading and deceptive to consumers – The absence of visible and transparent disclosure of service charge violated the consumer’s right to know 
– Held to constitute unfair trade practice under CPA [Paras 170-171, 174(iv)]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Guidelines Validated – The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the restaurant associations and upheld the validity and enforceability of the guidelines issued by CCPA – Declared that the service charge must be voluntary and any mandatory imposition would be illegal [Para 174]. 
 

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Applicability between Specific Performance and Eviction Suit – Not Attracted – The petitioner contended that eviction proceedings were barred by res-judicata due to prior dismissal of the specific performance suit – The Court held that the earlier suit dealt with enforcement of an agreement of sale, while the present suit concerns the petitioner’s liability to be evicted after dismissal of specific performance – Absence of identity of issues between the two suits excludes the applicability of res-judicata [Paras 9-11]. 
 
Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Preliminary Issue – Scope Explained – The petitioner sought trial of the res-judicata plea as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – The Court clarified that only jurisdictional bars or statutory bars qualify as preliminary issues – The plea of res-judicata in the facts of this case is a mixed question of fact and law, and cannot be tried as a preliminary issue [Paras 10-11]. 
 
Possession and Appeal Pending – Question of Eviction Open – 
Observation – The Court clarified that though res-judicata is not attracted, the effect of the Division Bench’s injunction and the pendency of A.S. No. 326 of 2018 on the petitioner’s right to resist eviction remains open and will be decided appropriately in the eviction suit [Para 11]. 
 
Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Question of eviction subject to consideration in the pending eviction suit on merits [Paras 11-12].