Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Goonda Act – Non-Supply of Relied Upon Documents – Detention order passed under Section 3 of Karnataka Goonda Act on ground that detenue was habitual offender involved in multiple offences under IPC, NDPS Act and BNS – Only detention order and grounds supplied – Copies of documents relied upon not furnished – Held: Non-supply of relied upon material violates constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) – Detenue deprived of right to make effective representation – Detention order vitiated [Paras 11–14].

Article 22(5) – Effective Representation – Constitutional Imperative – Supreme Court in Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India reiterated that all materials relied upon by Detaining Authority must be supplied pari passu with grounds of detention – Irrespective of whether detenue had prior knowledge – Personal liberty cannot be curtailed without strict compliance with procedural safeguards – Failure amounts to violation of Articles 21 and 22(5) [Paras 12–14].

Preventive Detention – Judicial Review – Though subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority ordinarily not interfered with – Courts must ensure strict adherence to procedural safeguards – Preventive detention laws, being drastic in nature, require scrupulous compliance – Any infraction of mandatory procedural requirement renders detention illegal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Detention order dated 04.07.2025, approval dated 11.07.2025 and confirmation dated 16.08.2025 quashed – Respondents directed to release detenue forthwith if not required in any other case – No order as to costs.

Bail – Assault on Public Servant – Allegation of dragging police constable on bonnet of moving car during lawful checking – Prima facie concerted act by occupants to obstruct official duty – Seriousness of offence and stage of investigation weigh against grant of bail – Role of applicant not found minimal at this stage – Bail rejected [Paras 7, 8, 12, 27].

Bail Jurisprudence – Reliance on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI – Principles against mechanical arrest and prolonged incarceration – Distinguished – Case involves deliberate assault on police personnel during sensitive security arrangement – Gravity and surrounding circumstances justify continued custody – No absolute rule of bail merely because investigation substantially complete [Paras 9–11].

Common Intention – Participation of Co-accused – Applicant claimed to be mere passenger – Prosecution version indicates collective act in furtherance of common intention – Specific allegations of pulling, throwing and dragging complainant – Role to be examined at trial – Discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 7, 8].

Contempt of Court – Advocate Convicted for Criminal Contempt – Rule 16 of M.P. High Court (Conditions of Practice) Rules, 2012 – Advocate found guilty of criminal contempt and conviction affirmed by Supreme Court – No material showing purgation of contempt – Appearance before Court without compliance violative of Rule 16 – Show-cause notice directed – State Bar Council directed to inform steps taken [Paras 16, 21–24].

Regulation of Advocates’ Appearance – Inherent Powers of Constitutional Courts – Courts empowered to regulate appearance of advocates to preserve dignity and orderly functioning – Reliance on Supreme Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, Mahipal Singh Rana and R. Muthukrishnan – Conduct of counsel found aggressive and bordering on defiance – Action warranted to uphold institutional discipline [Paras 17–20].

Decision: First bail application under Section 483 BNSS dismissed – Office directed to issue show-cause notice to Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria regarding appearance despite subsisting conviction for criminal contempt – Notice to State Bar Council to report compliance/action – Matter to be listed under “Direction” in week commencing 06/04/2026.

SARFAESI Act – Alternative Remedy – Writ against DRT Interim Order – Single Judge quashed DRT order rejecting interim relief in S.A. under Section 17 – Statutory appeal available under Section 18 – Supreme Court repeatedly held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious remedy exists – Held: Entertaining and allowing writ petition on first day without exhausting statutory remedy is contrary to law laid down in Satyawati Tondon and subsequent decisions – Impugned order set aside [Paras 19-21, 25].

Maintainability of Special Appeal – Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules – DRT constituted under Entry 45 List I (Banking) – Exclusionary clause in Rule 5 not attracted – Special appeal maintainable against order of Single Judge in SARFAESI matters – Held: Appeal maintainable [Paras 4-5].

DRT Order – Speaking or Non-Speaking – Single Judge held DRT order to be non-speaking – Division Bench perused DRT order and found detailed consideration of submissions and recording of reasons – Whether reasons justified is matter for appeal under Section 18 – Held: DRT order cannot be termed non-speaking – Writ not maintainable on such ground [Paras 17-18, 20].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exceptions to Alternative Remedy Rule – Exceptions limited to cases of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, challenge to vires, or action contrary to statute – Respondents heard before DRT – No violation of statutory provisions or jurisdictional error demonstrated – Held: Case does not fall within recognised exceptions – Writ wrongly entertained [Paras 19-20].

Auction Purchaser – Non-Issuance of Notice – Writ petition allowed on first day without issuing notice to auction purchaser despite issuance of sale certificate – Held: Procedure improper and prejudicial to rights of auction purchaser [Para 23].

Article 227 Jurisdiction – Roster Allocation – Single Judge exercised powers under Article 227 though jurisdiction as per roster dated 31.07.2025 vested in different Courts – Held: Order passed without jurisdiction in view of roster allocation – Unsustainable [Para 24-25].

Decision: Special Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of learned Single Judge quashed – Respondent nos. 1 to 3 granted liberty to file appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – No order as to costs.

Constitutional Law – Interfaith Live-in Relationship – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Multiple writ petitions by major Hindu and Muslim couples residing together without marriage seeking police protection – State objected on ground of non-compliance with Sections 8 and 9 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Held: Right to choose a partner and to cohabit flows from Article 21 – Courts must protect life and liberty of consenting adults irrespective of religion – Police directed to ensure protection if threat perception exists [Paras 31-34, 42].

U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Scope and Applicability – Whether mere interfaith live-in relationship attracts Sections 3 and 5 – Definition of “Conversion” under Section 2(c) requires renouncing one’s religion and adopting another – In absence of any allegation or material of conversion or attempt by misrepresentation, force, coercion or marriage, provisions of Act not attracted – Compliance with Sections 8 and 9 required only when conversion is intended – Live-in relationship per se does not mandate prior declaration under the Act – Petitioners not shown to have committed any offence [Paras 28-30].

Personal Law – Muslim Law – Observations in Kiran Rawat regarding impermissibility of premarital relationship in Islam – Held: No penal consequences under IPC or statutory law for consensual cohabitation between adults – Religious tenets cannot override constitutional guarantees – Protection cannot be denied on basis of personal law objections [Paras 26-27].

Fundamental Rights – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Articles 14 and 15 – If live-in relationship between adults of same religion is entitled to protection, denial to interfaith couple would amount to discrimination – Law equal for all irrespective of religion – State cannot discriminate in extending protection of life and liberty [Paras 42-43].

Right to Privacy and Choice – Autonomy of Adult Individuals – Reliance placed on Lata Singh, Shafin Jahan, Shakti Vahini, K.S. Puttaswamy, Supriyo, Soni Gerry and Mayra @ Vaishnavi – Choice of partner lies within exclusive domain of individual – Social approval not condition precedent for exercise of constitutional rights – State under positive obligation to protect couples from honour-based threats [Paras 16-21, 34-36, 39-40].

Live-in Relationship – Legal Recognition – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act acknowledges relationship in nature of marriage – Mere absence of marriage does not deprive major individuals of protection under Article 21 – Court cannot sit in moral judgment over consensual adult cohabitation [Paras 36, 46-49 of Akanksha case referred].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – Petitioners at liberty to live together peacefully – In case of disturbance or credible threat, petitioners may approach Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP concerned – Police authorities directed to verify majority and voluntary cohabitation and provide immediate protection – No coercive action to be taken against petitioners unless any cognizable offence is registered in accordance with law.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Letters Patent Jurisdiction – Partition Suit as "Suit for Land" – Leave under Clause XII – Suit for partition of ancestral HUF properties (including land, flats and other immovable assets) situated partly within and partly outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court – Plaintiff claimed 1/7th share in the estate of her deceased father as Karta of HUF and sought partition, declaration, and injunction – Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed Interim Application for rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was obtained – Three questions framed: (A) Whether the Suit is a "Suit for land" under Clause XII; (B) Whether leave under Clause XII is required; and (C) Whether the Plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 – Held: All three questions answered in the affirmative – Plaint rejected as a whole – Interim Application allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 1, 47, 65, 68].

"A Partition Suit is a Suit for Land" – Question A Answered – Whether a Suit for partition of immovable properties qualifies as a "Suit for land" under Clause XII of the Letters Patent – Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraoji vs. Onkarmal Ishar Dass held it is well settled that "a suit for partition of immovable properties is a suit for land" – Single Judge in Vishram Parbat H.U.F. followed the said view and further held that a suit for recovery of possession is also a Suit for land – Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat held that "a suit for land is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable property" – Supreme Court in Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Narendra Gorani affirmed that a controversy over possession of land falls within the conception of "suit for land" under Clause XII – In the present case, Prayer (b) of the Plaint sought both partition by metes and bounds and handing over of the Plaintiff's share, thereby establishing it as a Suit for possession and land – Held: Present Suit is a Suit for land and immovable properties under Clause XII of the Letters Patent – Question A answered in the affirmative – Orders in Jagneesh Malhotra and Dipika Hitendra Shah, relied upon by the Plaintiff, held to be mere orders granting leave with no precedential value [Paras 49-56].

Leave Under Clause XII is a Condition Precedent – It Cannot be Obtained After Institution of Suit – Question B Answered – Whether leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is required when part of the suit land falls outside the Court's jurisdiction – Calcutta High Court in Benoy Shankar Dhandani vs. Choteylal Dhandania held that "it is now well established that in a suit for land, if the entire land is not situate within jurisdiction, it is necessary that leave of the Court should be obtained before the institution of the suit" – Bombay High Court in Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Bajrang Alloys Ltd. held that "the leave must be granted at the time of acceptance of the plaint and cannot be granted afterwards" and that "leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is a condition precedent to the maintenance and entertainment of the suit" – Admittedly, Plaintiff did not obtain leave prior to institution of the Suit and cannot now do so – Held: Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was required and not obtained – Question B answered in the affirmative [Paras 57-61].

The Fatal Consequence of Missing Leave – Partial Partition Equally Impermissible – Question C Answered – Whether the entire Plaint stands to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where leave under Clause XII was not obtained – Absence of leave deprives the Court of jurisdiction over properties situated outside its original jurisdiction – Suit for remaining properties within jurisdiction not maintainable as it would amount to a Suit for partial partition, which is not permissible in law – Supreme Court in Kenchegowda vs. Siddegowda Alias Motegowda firmly held that "a suit for partial partition is not maintainable" – Prayer clauses (c), (c)(i), (c)(ii) and (c)(iii) though pertaining to the Malad property (within jurisdiction) are consequential to Prayer (b) which seeks partition of the entire Exhibit 'C' properties and granting those reliefs would amount to partial partition – Held: Entire Plaint is barred by law – Plaintiff's argument that the only consequence of non-obtaining of leave would be refusal of relief at final hearing rejected – Plaint to be rejected as a whole under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Question C answered in the affirmative [Paras 62-68].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Plaint in Suit No. 422 of 2012 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court – No order as to costs.

Banking Law – Fraud Classification – Interim Injunction – Forensic Audit Report – Single Judge restrained banks from proceeding on basis of Forensic Audit Report dated 15.10.2020 holding it invalid under RBI Master Directions 2024 – Held: Master Directions 2024 operate prospectively – Actions taken under Master Directions 2016 remain valid – External auditor under Clause 8.8.2 of 2016 Directions need not necessarily be a Chartered Accountant under Companies Act – Interim injunction effectively granted final relief and was perverse – Order set aside [Paras 32-36, 44-45, 51-52].

RBI Master Directions – Supersession – Effect of 2024 Directions – Whether earlier actions invalidated – Single Judge held 2024 Directions superseded 2016 Directions and required audit by qualified Chartered Accountant under relevant statute – Division Bench held 2024 Directions built upon and consolidated earlier regime but did not retrospectively invalidate actions under 2016 Directions – No saving clause required to preserve concluded actions – Executive decisions under 2016 continue to subsist [Paras 32-33, 36].

Forensic Audit – Qualification of Auditor – Footnote 14 to Clause 4.1.1 of 2024 Directions – Interpretation – Single Judge held report invalid as signatory not a Chartered Accountant and BDO not ICAI-registered – Held: Clause 8.8.2 of 2016 Directions permitted banks to engage external auditors including forensic experts or internal teams – Companies Act does not define “external auditor” or “forensic expert” in this context – Requirement under 2024 Directions cannot be read retrospectively – Finding of ineligibility perverse [Paras 35-36, 39-40].

Civil Procedure – Interim Injunction – Grant of Relief Beyond Pleadings – Single Judge relied on issues not pleaded or argued including alleged lack of independence of BDO and timeline violations – Held: Court cannot rewrite pleadings or grant interim relief on grounds dehors pleadings – Interim order amounted to granting final relief of declaration and mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage – Procedural impropriety vitiated order [Paras 41-44, 51].

Injunction Principles – Prima Facie Case – Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Injury – Respondent challenged forensic report years after receipt and after multiple proceedings – Fraud proceedings at show-cause stage with opportunity of hearing – Held: No prima facie case established – No irreparable injury shown – Greater public interest in allowing banks to proceed in fraud classification – Interim stay of all banks’ actions unjustified [Paras 45-49].

Equitable Relief – Conduct of Plaintiff – Multiple proceedings – Delay and waiver – Respondent received forensic report in 2021 but raised qualification issue only after RTI in 2025 – Engaged in several legal proceedings including writ petitions – Held: Conduct relevant in equity – Belated jurisdictional challenge insufficient to justify interim injunction [Paras 46, 50].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Interim Orders – Though appellate court normally slow to interfere, interference justified where order suffers from perversity, consideration of irrelevant material, and breach of natural justice – Impugned order set aside as illegal and procedurally improper [Para 51].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment dated 24.12.2025 granting interim injunction set aside – Interim Applications dismissed – Banks permitted to proceed in accordance with law – Suits to continue uninfluenced by Single Judge’s observations.

Commercial Suit – Disclosure of Documents – Order XI Rule 1 CPC (as amended by Commercial Courts Act) – Additional Documents at Argument Stage – Suit marked undefended as defendant forfeited right to file written statement – Plaintiff sought leave to disclose documents which were in its power and possession but not filed with plaint – Held: No absolute bar under Sub-Rule 5 to Rule 1 of Order XI – Court may grant leave even after Sub-Rule 4 stage upon showing “reasonable cause” – Legislature consciously engrafted Sub-Rule 5 permitting exercise of judicial discretion – Leave granted subject to costs [Paras 15–19, 25–28].

Reasonable Cause – Meaning and Scope – Lower Threshold than “Good Cause” or “Sufficient Cause” – Plaintiff explained that documents were either located at plant office, stored in archived email database, or in possession of sister concern and were traced only after Court’s queries during arguments – Held: Causes shown were just, cogent and reasonable – At stage of granting leave, Court not required to test genuineness or veracity of documents – Such scrutiny to be undertaken at trial [Paras 21, 23–24, 26–27].

Undefended Suit – Right of Audience – Defendant having forfeited right to file written statement cannot claim right of audience in application – However, defendant entitled to cross-examine second witness limited to additional documents permitted to be disclosed [Paras 4, 29].

Scope of Judicial Discretion – Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – No Outer Time Limit Fixed – Even at argument stage, additional documents may be permitted if reasonable cause shown – Right of plaintiff to present case is a vested right in adversarial litigation – Court’s jurisdiction at this stage confined to considering whether documents should be taken on record and not their evidentiary value [Paras 25–27].

Directions – Plaintiff permitted to disclose documents annexed as “C-1” to “F” – Additional Judges’ Brief of Documents to be filed – Leave granted to file affidavit of evidence of second witness restricted to said documents – Disclosure subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- as costs to Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks – Defendant entitled to limited cross-examination [Paras 28–31].

Decision: Application allowed – Leave granted to disclose additional documents and file affidavit of second witness restricted to such documents – Costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed – Defendant entitled to limited cross-examination.

FIR Registration – BNSS, 2023 – Preliminary Enquiry under Section 173(3) – Petitioner sought mandamus to register FIR alleging forgery, defamation, offences under SC/ST Act and IT Act – Police conducted preliminary enquiry with prior approval and closed complaint as “No Cognizable Offence” – Held: Under Section 173(3) BNSS, preliminary enquiry permissible in offences punishable between 3 to 7 years to ascertain prima facie case – If no prima facie case found, FIR need not be registered – Action of police in conformity with BNSS – No interference warranted [Paras 6(ii)-6(iv), 8].

Alternative Remedy – Sections 173(4) and 175 BNSS – Petitioner directly invoked Article 226 without approaching Superintendent of Police or Magistrate – Held: Statutory remedy before SP and thereafter Magistrate is mandatory precondition – Writ petition not maintainable without exhausting remedy – Liberty granted to approach Magistrate [Paras 6(v), 8, 11].

Defamation – Non-Cognizable Offence – Allegations primarily disclose reputational harm due to media broadcast – Criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS is non-cognizable and bailable – Held: Police cannot register FIR for defamation alone – Remedy lies before Magistrate by private complaint [Para 3 – Reply; Paras 7, 9].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Essential Ingredients – Complaint did not disclose insult or intimidation on ground of Scheduled Tribe status – Mere allegation of fabrication of documents insufficient – No prima facie case under SC/ST Act made out – Held: Provisions not attracted [Para 7, 9].

Information Technology Act – Ingredients of Offence – Allegations did not disclose impersonation, identity theft, cheating by personation, or publication of obscene/sexually explicit material – No material to attract Sections 66C, 66D, 67, 67A IT Act – Held: No cognizable offence under IT Act prima facie made out [Para 7].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus to Register FIR – In light of statutory scheme under BNSS and Supreme Court decisions, writ court should not direct registration of FIR when statutory remedies exist and preliminary enquiry conducted in accordance with law – Held: No mandamus can be issued – Writ dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Applicability of BNSS – Complaint lodged after enforcement of BNSS on 01.07.2024 – Held: Procedure under BNSS governs – Old CrPC provisions not applicable – Section 173(3) BNSS marks departure from Section 154 CrPC and permits limited preliminary enquiry even where cognizable offence disclosed [Paras 6(i)-6(iv), 9].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Communication dated 08.11.2025 upholding “No Cognizable Offence” sustained – Petitioner at liberty to approach competent Magistrate under BNSS, 2023 – Pending applications closed.

Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Second Appeal – Suit for Possession and Declaration – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant's suit for possession of DDA Slum Flat and declaration that documents dated 27.03.2000 were forged and fabricated was dismissed by Trial Court on 19.04.2017 on the grounds that the Plaintiff had failed to prove possession and the Suit was barred by limitation – Appeal was preferred only on 04.09.2021 with a delay of 1589 days, accompanied by an Application under Order XLI Rule 3-A CPC for condonation of delay – District Judge dismissed the delay condonation application on 24.09.2025 and consequently dismissed the Appeal – Appellant challenged the said order in the present Second Appeal – Held: No merit in the present Appeal – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-3, 37-38].

"Selectively Active in Court" – Participation in Execution Proceedings While Ignoring the Right of Appeal – First Ground of Delay Rejected – Appellant claimed to be a senior citizen suffering from serious ailments, physical incapacity and extreme financial hardship preventing timely filing of the Appeal – No medical documents were placed on record to substantiate incapacitation – Second ground of inability to engage a legal counsel also rejected because the Appellant had appeared before the Executing Court on 13.02.2018, 20.03.2018 and 27.09.2018 in Execution Petition No. 387 of 2017 – Appellant was fully aware of the Decree and actively resisted execution till possession was taken on 18.03.2021 – Held: If the Appellant could contest Execution proceedings, there was no reason why he could not have filed the Appeal on time – "The Appellant had failed to act diligently and has remained selectively active in approaching the Court" [Paras 26-29].

Covid-19 Pandemic Cannot Rescue Delay That Pre-Dates the Pandemic – Third Ground Rejected – Third ground for condonation of delay was that the Covid-19 Pandemic had rendered the Appellant, a vulnerable senior citizen, unable to file the Appeal in time – District Judge correctly noted that even if the period of Covid-19 Pandemic was excluded in terms of the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation), the statutory period of limitation of 90 days from 19.04.2017 had expired long before the onset of the Pandemic – No cogent explanation was furnished for the period from 19.05.2017 to 01.03.2020 – Ground rightly rejected [Paras 30-32].

Conduct, Behaviour and Attitude of Litigant Are Decisive in Condonation – Liberal Approach Cannot Override Diligence – Delay was not rejected mechanically but on account of the Appellant's conduct – Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunath Nafar Academy & Ors. held that "conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to the inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration" and that "courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties" – Supreme Court in Basawaraj vs. Land Acquisition Officer held that condoning inordinate delay without sufficient cause "amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature" – No sufficient cause having been shown, the delay condonation application was rightly dismissed and no interference warranted [Paras 33-37].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No infirmity found in the order of the District Judge dismissing the Application under Order XLI Rule 3-A CPC for condonation of delay of 1504 days in filing the Appeal – Appeal disposed of along with pending applications.