Civil Law – Declaration Suit – Challenge to Consent Decree – Allegation of Fraud – Trial Court decree in favour of plaintiff declaring decree dated 29.04.1988 as fraudulent – Lower Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decree – High Court upheld the appellate findings – Held: Plaintiff failed to plead and prove fraud as required under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC – Consent decree suffered by plaintiff himself cannot be annulled on vague allegations of fraud – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7, 9, 20-22].

Compromise Decree – Challenge under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC – Plaintiff sought to invalidate earlier decree claiming it was obtained by fraud – High Court held that bar under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC is mandatory – No separate suit lies to challenge compromise decree – Proper remedy was to approach the same court that recorded the compromise – Lower appellate court justified in applying statutory bar even if not pleaded in defence – Reliance placed on Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 479 [Paras 24].

Registration of Decree – Requirement under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 – Whether compromise decree transferring immovable property required registration – Held: Decree merely records admission of pre-existing rights – Does not require registration – Reference made to Som Dev v. Rati Ram, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 303 – Argument that the decree created new rights rejected [Paras 23].

Plea of Fraud – Requirement of Specific Pleading and Proof – Plaintiff alleged fraud by defendant’s father in obtaining thumb impressions under pretext of surety – Court held that such allegations were not supported by credible evidence – Plaintiff had voluntarily appeared and admitted the claim in earlier suit – No concealment or independent corroboration shown – Reliance on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 and Badami v. Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574, held misplaced – Mere assertion of fraud insufficient without particulars and evidence [Paras 21-22].

Evidence – Possession – Plaintiff relied on electricity bills (Ex. P11–P40) to establish possession – High Court held that such documents, though exhibited, were not duly proved – No official witness examined – Revenue records showed possession with defendant – Oral testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses found unreliable and inconsistent [Para 25].

Estoppel – Voluntary Consent – Plaintiff’s argument that no compensation was received under alleged family settlement rejected – Once consent decree is admitted and acted upon, it operates as estoppel unless set aside by competent court on fraud – Plaintiff bound by his own admission and compromise in earlier suit [Paras 26].

Limitation – Suit filed nearly four years after decree – Appellant’s plea that cause of action arose only when threat of dispossession was made not accepted – High Court affirmed lower appellate court’s view that suit was barred by limitation [Para 11].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court dated 27.01.1999 affirmed – Consent decree dated 29.04.1988 held lawful and binding – No evidence of fraud found – Suit barred by Order 23 Rule 3A CPC and limitation – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Defamation – News Broadcast – Section 499 IPC – Criminal Intent – Mens Rea – Debate telecast on “Times Now” dated 19.02.2016 hosted by Arnab Goswami described respondent as “Gunda Lawyer”, “Hooligan” and “Rogue Lawyer” – Complaint alleged imputations harmed reputation – Held: Offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC requires intention or knowledge to harm reputation – Terms used were contextual descriptions of respondent’s documented conduct during public violence, not imputations upon moral character – Expressions though in poor taste constituted fair journalistic comment on matters of public concern – Absence of mens rea defeats charge – No offence under Section 500 IPC made out [Paras 94–101].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Defamation by Company – Mens Rea – Juristic Person – Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. held incapable of possessing the requisite mens rea for offence under Section 499 IPC – Company, being an artificial entity, cannot form intent to harm – Consistent with Sunilakhya Chowdhury v. H.M.J.H. Jadwet, AIR 1968 Cal 266; Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sahara India Commercial Corp. Ltd., (2001) 1 CALLT 262; Raymond Ltd. v. Rameshwar Das Dwarkadas P. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1328 – Complaint against Company unsustainable [Paras 55–61].

Vicarious Liability – Directors and Senior Officers – Absence of Specific Role – Samir Jain, Vineet Jain, Indu Jain and Shrijeet Ramakant Mishra summoned solely by virtue of their corporate positions as Managing/Whole-time Directors of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. – Complaint contained vague, omnibus allegations without specific imputations or proof of editorial control or involvement in telecast – Vicarious liability in criminal law cannot be presumed in absence of statutory provision or personal involvement – Summoning order quashed qua Directors [Paras 70–83].

Press Freedom – Article 19(1)(a) and Right to Reputation – Expression made in context of violent incidents of public importance held to be fair comment – Honest reporting and opinion on matters of public concern protected under Article 19(1)(a) – Balance between right to free speech and right to reputation under Article 21 reaffirmed – Reliance placed on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221; Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey, 2024 INSC 66 [Paras 91–93].

Procedure – Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Inquiry – Petitioners residing outside territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate – Failure to conduct mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. before issuance of summons rendered summoning order unsustainable [Para 26].

Decision: Complaint and summoning order dated 28.02.2018 quashed – Company Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. cannot be prosecuted for defamation – No specific or individual role established against Directors – Broadcast by Arnab Goswami held fair comment made in good faith and for public good – Continuation of proceedings held abuse of process – Petitions allowed [Paras 102–104].

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43-D(5) – Bail – Prolonged Custody – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Appellant accused of aiding and abetting hoisting of “Khalistani” flag on D.C. Office, Moga, under influence of banned organization “Sikhs for Justice” – No recovery from appellant except mobile phone – Only one phone call linking him to principal accused – 20 of 149 witnesses examined in 5 years – Held: Though allegations serious, no incriminating material establishing prima facie offence under UAPA – Delay in trial and long incarceration justify bail under Article 21 – Statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) cannot override constitutional guarantee of liberty [Paras 12–14, 17, 23–24].

Criminal Law – Bail under Special Statutes – Scope of Constitutional Courts – Restrictive Provisions – Courts not bound by statutory embargo on bail if long incarceration violates Article 21 – Preventing “trial as punishment” – Reliance on K.A. Najeeb, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen, Sheikh Javed Iqbal, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Jalaluddin Khan and Tapas Kumar Palit – Held: Liberty and proportionality are overriding constitutional considerations; bail is rule, jail exception [Paras 13–21].

UAPA – Absence of Prima Facie Case – No Evidence of Conspiracy or Radicalisation – Apart from one telephonic call and general allegation of indoctrination, no material indicating meeting of minds or abetment – Prosecution’s slow pace and absence of corroboration weigh in favour of grant of bail [Paras 12, 22–23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Special NIA Judge dated 06.06.2024 set aside – Appellant directed to be released on regular bail on conditions including bond of ₹10 lakh with two sureties, surrender of passport, attendance before IO and SHO, non-interference with witnesses, and non-participation in unlawful activities – Liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation upon violation [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Reversed – Appellant-husband convicted for abetting suicide of wife based on alleged cruelty and dowry demands – No specific instances of mental or physical cruelty proved – Alleged demand for sewing machine not supported by reliable evidence – Panch witness turned hostile – Held: Mere allegations of unhappiness and weeping insufficient to prove abetment – No evidence of instigation or active role in suicide – Missing report lodged by Appellant himself – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside. Acquittal [Paras 14–25]

Criminal Law – Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC – No Material Particulars – Parents of deceased made general and vague allegations without specific incidents or unlawful demands – No neighbours examined – No reliable proof of harassment – Held: Mere emotional distress without clear evidence of cruelty insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish ingredients of Section 498-A beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8–10, 14]

Evidence Law – Hostile Witness – Effect on Prosecution Case – Panch witness to seizure of sewing machine turned hostile – No corroborative evidence to establish illegal dowry demand – Held: Seizure panchnama cannot be relied upon – Ownership of sewing machine also doubtful – Demand not proved [Paras 11, 15–16]

Criminal Procedure – Burden on Prosecution – Allegations must be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: General and omnibus allegations unsupported by proximate events or reliable testimony insufficient to sustain conviction – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Para 25]

Precedents – Instigation and Abetment – Reiterated that instigation requires direct or active act with intention to provoke suicide – Reliance placed on M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 – Held: No act or words of instigation proved in present case – No suicide note or proximate cause – Acquittal warranted [Paras 21–24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to furnish bond under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Paras 25–26]

Criminal Law – Seizure of Vehicle – Prohibition Offence – Interim Custody – Vehicle seized under FIR for carrying liquor in violation of Gujarat Prohibition Act – No confiscation proceedings initiated under amended Section 98(2) of Prohibition Act despite seizure exceeding 20 litres – Vehicle lying idle in police custody – Held: In absence of confiscation action and to prevent deterioration of vehicle, release of vehicle ordered with stringent conditions – Power under Article 226 rightly exercised [Paras 1–8].

Confiscation – Non-Initiation of Proceedings – Despite mandatory nature of amended Section 98(2), no steps taken by prosecution for confiscation or approaching Magistrate – Held: Delay defeats purpose – Following Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala, vehicle must be released to registered owner with safeguards – Mere pendency of FIR does not justify continued seizure indefinitely [Paras 7–8].

Article 226 – Powers of High Court – High Court has wide jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to direct release of property when delay or inaction by authorities causes prejudice – Held: No bar under Section 98 in current facts where no action for confiscation was taken – Exercise of writ jurisdiction justified [Para 8].

Direction for Release – Vehicle to be released to registered owner (Ahir Enterprise) through Power of Attorney holder on furnishing solvent surety and undertakings – Future confiscation proceedings not barred – Magistrate can still initiate action under Section 98(2) if warranted – Police to photograph vehicle and prepare panchanama before release [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Vehicle Ashok Leyland Ltd UM4220/66 H CC (Goods Carrier) bearing registration No. GJ-16-AV-9994 to be released to petitioner on strict conditions – Rule made absolute – Direct service permitted [Paras 9–13].

Civil Law – Commercial Recovery – Dismissal of Suit – Appeal – Plaintiff textile company filed suit for recovery of ₹7,86,101/- against event organiser alleging breach of booth fabrication contract for international exhibition in Frankfurt – Trial Court dismissed suit for lack of evidence and non-joinder of necessary party – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove claim due to lack of competent and knowledgeable witness – Testimony of SPA holder devoid of personal knowledge – Defendant had transferred money to third party (Anuj Gautam) with plaintiff’s consent – Non-joinder of third-party contractor fatal to suit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 3–5, 10–21, 26–34, 39–40].

Evidence Act – Proof of Transaction – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff relied on testimony of SPA holder (PW-1) with no personal knowledge of transaction – PW-1 admitted he did not visit site, had no knowledge of business dealings, and had met director of plaintiff company only once – Held: SPA witness must have personal knowledge of transaction to testify – Plaintiff failed to discharge burden under Sections 101 to 106 of Evidence Act – Reliance on National Small Industries and A.C. Narayanan misplaced – Those cases require witness to have both authorization and personal knowledge [Paras 13–15, 26–29, 35].

Contract Law – Privity of Contract – Third Party Execution – Defendant referred work to third-party vendor (Anuj Gautam) allegedly with plaintiff’s consent – Plaintiff failed to implead said third party – Trial Court and Appellate Court held that without impleading executing party, suit for deficiency in service was not maintainable – Held: Non-joinder of necessary party fatal under Order I Rule 9 CPC – No effective adjudication possible without third party – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 7–8, 19–20, 31–34].

Admissions – Section 58 Evidence Act – Applicability – Plaintiff claimed admitted facts (receipt of money and partial refund) should be accepted without proof – Held: Admission of receipt alone insufficient – Plaintiff must still prove that balance was unjustifiably retained and not paid to third party as instructed – No legal inference of liability can be drawn from partial refund alone – No admission by defendant acknowledging liability for ₹7.86 lakhs [Paras 22, 38].

Commercial Courts Act – Pre-Institution Mediation – Procedural Compliance – Plaintiff attempted pre-suit mediation under Section 12A – Defendant did not participate – Suit proceeded – Compliance with procedural requirement upheld – However, case failed on merits [Para 6].

Approbate and Reprobate – Allegation of Inconsistent Conduct – Plaintiff argued defendant could not deny liability after issuing recovery notice to third party – Held: No inconsistent conduct shown – Defendant's consistent stand was that it acted only as intermediary – Recovery notice to third party not inconsistent with denial of liability towards plaintiff – Reliance on Karunesh Kumar and Dhanjeet Singh misplaced – No application to facts of commercial recovery [Paras 25, 36–37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Suit rightly dismissed by Trial Court – Plaintiff failed to prove claim or join necessary party – Pending application also dismissed as infructuous – No costs awarded [Paras 40–41].

Industrial Disputes Act – Representation through Advocates – Section 36(3)-(4) – Labour Court debarred Management’s counsel – Held: Workman’s own appearance through counsel amounts to implied consent and waiver – Leave of Court also implied as Labour Court permitted filing of Vakalatnama and allowed adjournment – Order debarring advocate set aside [Paras 11–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Representation by Legal Practitioners – Section 36(3) & (4) ID Act – Scope and Requirement of Consent and Leave – Complete bar applies only to conciliation – Before Labour Court, appearance permissible with consent of opposite party and leave of Court – Held: Two-fold requirement of consent and leave reaffirmed – Consent may be express or implied; leave may be express or inferred from conduct of the Court – Legal position reiterated from Paradip Port Trust (1977) and Thyssen Krupp (2023) [Paras 9–10, 14].

Implied Consent – Waiver of Objection – Workman filed preliminary objection under Section 36(3)-(4) but subsequently appeared through counsel on 04.10.2024 – This subsequent conduct constitutes waiver of objection and implied consent – Once a party itself appears through advocate, it cannot deny the other side the same facility – Workman’s later claim that the order-sheet recording appearance through counsel was “erroneous” rejected due to absence of rectification application – Order-sheet is conclusive record of court proceedings [Paras 11–13].

Implied Leave of the Court – Labour Court permitting Management’s counsel to appear and allowing adjournment application dated 12.11.2024 amounts to implied leave – Consideration and allowance of application filed by advocate shows Court’s permission – Subsequent attempt by workman to retract not sustainable [Paras 16–17].

Precedents – Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (1977) 2 SCC 339 – Consent and leave are mandatory – Section 36(4) cannot be read as disjunctive – Industrial Disputes Act prevails over Advocates Act as special legislation – Reaffirmed – Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1707) applied – Patna HC in M/s Key’s Brake Hoses (1999) and Bombay HC in T.K. Varghese (2001) followed on implied consent and unjustified refusal of consent [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Record – Sanctity of Order Sheets – Courts’ orders are conclusive of proceedings – Respondent cannot discredit order-sheet entries without seeking formal rectification – Mere assertion in affidavit insufficient [Para 13].

Decision – Labour Court’s order dated 27.02.2025 debaring advocate unsustainable in law and on facts – Implied consent and implied leave established – Order set aside – Writ petition allowed – Labour Court directed to apprise workman of his right to legal aid and proceed expeditiously [Paras 18–20].

Service Law – Recovery from Pension – Rule 2.2(a) PCS Rules – Consent Mandatory – Petitioner retired as Executive Officer from Municipal Council, Kaithal – Recovery of ₹6,63,688/- made from pension account in 2021 without prior notice or consent – Held: Recovery without consent is impermissible under Rule 2.2(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II and Rule 11 of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 – Only lawful method is through court suit if consent is not obtained – Impugned order quashed [Paras 10–13, 19].

Constitutional Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Recovery without Hearing – Recovery effected by Bank without notice or show-cause to pensioner – Held: Violative of natural justice and judicially unsustainable – Arbitrary exercise of power – Adverse order without hearing renders entire action illegal [Paras 6, 20, 23, 38].

Pension Law – Applicability of Service Rules – Rules at Time of Retirement Govern – Petitioner retired in 2016 under 1993 Pension Rules – Held: Subsequent Pension Rules, 2016 not applicable unless expressly provided – Pension governed by rules in force at time of retirement [Paras 14–15].

Recovery – Supreme Court Precedents – No Misrepresentation by Employee – Reliance placed on Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel, Jagdish Prasad Singh – Held: No recovery permissible post-retirement where payment was bona fide and without fraud/misrepresentation – Equity favours pensioner where State error caused overpayment [Paras 16–19].

Role of Bank – RBI Circular – No Authority to Recover Unilaterally – Punjab National Bank debited pensioner’s account at behest of Government without authority – RBI Circular mandates banks to act only after direction from government and not recover directly from pensioner – Held: Act of bank arbitrary and illegal [Paras 23–24].

Refixation of Pension – Scope and Limits – Rule 9.15 PCS Rules and Rule 78 HCS Pension Rules – Held: Pension once authorised cannot be revised to disadvantage of employee unless clerical error shown and notice served – Rule 9.15 is subject to Rule 2.2(a), requiring consent for recovery even after refixation – Five-year bar on revision under Rule 78 also noted [Paras 25–36].

Equity and Public Administration – Abrupt Recovery from Retiree – Court expresses concern over harshness and human cost of recovery without notice – Held: Governance must reflect procedural sensitivity and uphold retired employees’ dignity – Abrupt recovery undermines public trust and welfare administration ethos [Paras 37–38].

Relief – Impugned order dated 16.11.2022 quashed – Respondents directed to refund ₹6,63,688/- with 6% interest from date of petition – RBI directed to issue binding instructions prohibiting unauthorised recovery by agency banks from pensioners’ accounts [Paras 39–40].

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Charge Sustained – Accused allegedly conspired to dispossess the complainant from his land, leading to fatal assault on his son – Evidence of threats, long-standing land dispute, and coordinated movement of accused supported by CCTV footage, CDRs, and eyewitness accounts – Held: Trial court rightly framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 447, 147, 201, and other IPC provisions – Material creates grave suspicion, sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 40–55].

Criminal Law – Nature of Offence – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Prima Facie Case of Murder Established – Argument that single blow rules out murder rejected – Repeated blows with bricks and iron pipe on the deceased’s head with full force show intention to kill – Injury pattern and conduct reveal deliberate targeting – Held: No basis to convert charge to Section 304 IPC at this stage – Trial court justified in framing charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 51–58].

Criminal Conspiracy – Inference from Circumstances – Land Dispute Escalation – Shared Intent – History of land transactions and threats point to common design among accused – Execution of illegal dispossession plan amounts to conspiracy – Even non-present accused implicated by pre-event meetings and CDR data – Held: Conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and surrounding facts – Presence at spot not essential for conspiracy charge [Paras 45–50].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge of Accused – High Court Revisional Power Limited – Discharge of Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh upheld – Evidence against them not sufficient to infer intent or participation – No direct or reliable role assigned – Trial court applied correct legal test – Held: High Court will not interfere unless manifest illegality or perversity exists – Discharge justified [Paras 66–71].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Serious Offences – Bail Rejected – Bail sought on merits and medical grounds – Accused charged with murder and conspiracy – Evidence indicates continuing threat to complainant – Trial at initial stage with material witnesses pending – Medical conditions found manageable in jail – Held: Gravity of offence, conspiracy angle, and threat to complainant warrant rejection of bail [Paras 74–78].