Eviction Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act – Appellant alleged that proceedings under the PP Act were not maintainable due to the existence of bona fide disputes regarding lease renewal – High Court held that the Estate Officer has jurisdiction under the PP Act as the property is public premises and no ownership dispute exists – Dismissed petition challenging the eviction order [Paras 10, 13, 19].

Bona Fide Dispute – Ownership and Lease Renewal – Petitioner argued that unresolved disputes regarding the renewal of a 10-year lease constituted bona fide disputes – High Court rejected the claim, holding that mere pendency of requests or litigation regarding lease renewal does not amount to a bona fide dispute as per Kaikhosrou (CHICK) Kavasji Framji v. Union of India [Paras 6-7, 15-16].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal under PP Act – High Court emphasized the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 9 of the PP Act – Dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority with lenient consideration of delay due to prior writ proceedings [Paras 18, 22].

Bias Allegations – Estate Officer as a Captive Tribunal – Petitioner contended bias and lack of independence of the Estate Officer – High Court rejected the claim, citing absence of pleadings or evidence of bias and reliance on Supreme Court rulings upholding the PP Act's framework [Paras 11, 15].

Jurisdictional Bar – Applicability of Civil Court – High Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Sections 10 and 13 of the PP Act – Upheld the finality of orders passed under the PP Act unless appealed through prescribed mechanisms [Paras 10, 17].

Decision: The writ petition (WPA 29578 of 2024) was dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under the PP Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within 12 days, with the Appellate Authority directed to consider the delay leniently. No costs were imposed.
 

Bail Application – Conditions for Granting Bail to Foreign Nationals – The petitioner, a foreign national facing charges under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 174-A IPC, was granted regular bail. The Court imposed conditions including a personal bond of ₹50,000, surrendering her passport, and restrictions on leaving the Delhi NCR without permission. The petitioner was deemed not to pose a flight risk due to her cooperation and absence of any valid passport   Paras46,47.

Judicial Custody vs. Executive Detention – Separation of Powers – The Court clarified that granting bail relates only to judicial custody and cannot address executive detention under the Foreigners Act. Actions by the Central Government or the FRRO regarding visa violations are independent of the Court’s bail order and fall within the domain of executive powers  Paras34−41.

Foreigners Act – Sovereign Authority of the Central Government – While the petitioner argued against potential detention after release on bail, the Court held that the Central Government retains the power under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act to impose conditions, including detention, on foreign nationals violating visa rules. Judicial interference in such sovereign matters was deemed beyond the scope of bail proceedings Paras43−45.

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – The petitioner was granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including a ban on travel outside Delhi NCR, surrendering her passport, and providing sureties. The Court emphasized that the Central Government retains the authority to address visa violations and other immigration matters separately Paras46−49.
 

Criminal Writ - Challenge to the opening of Class-B history sheets – Regulation 228 of U.P. Police Regulations – Procedural Irregularities – Impugned Order Quashed – Petitioners challenged the opening of Class-B history sheets approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida – The Court found that the order was passed without applying mind, merely approving the report of the Station House Officer, without assigning reasons or affording the petitioners an opportunity to object – Held: Opening of history sheets against the petitioners violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the impugned history sheets are quashed [Paras 19, 22-27].

Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement of Fair Hearing – Violation of Article 14 – Even where natural justice is not explicitly provided under law, it must be read into provisions affecting personal liberty and rights – Opening of history sheets without providing an opportunity to object constitutes a violation of the right to equality under Article 14 – Held: Police authorities must provide citizens an opportunity to present objections before deciding to open history sheets [Paras 23-24, 26].

Surveillance and Fundamental Rights – Violation of Articles 19 and 21 – Class-B history sheets and resultant police surveillance were found to infringe upon the petitioners' rights to freedom of movement and privacy – Held: Mere implication in criminal cases, without evidence of habitual or professional criminality, does not justify subjecting individuals to perpetual surveillance under the pre-independence U.P. Police Regulations [Paras 25-26].

Constitutionality of History Sheet Provisions – Need for Guidelines – The Court emphasized that provisions under the U.P. Police Regulations were framed during the colonial era and do not align with the modern constitutional framework – Directed the State to amend guidelines to provide for mandatory opportunity of objection and annual review of history sheets [Paras 26-28].

Final Decision – Impugned history sheets against the petitioners quashed – State directed to issue revised guidelines for opening and reviewing history sheets to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 19, and 21 [Paras 27-28, 32].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Recovery of Possession – Arrears of Rent – Suit Allowed – Plaintiff, a registered Sangam, sought recovery of possession of a marriage hall and movables (furniture and utensils) leased to the defendant, along with arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profits – Defendant admitted tenancy but failed to pay fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal and did not vacate the premises despite termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Plaintiff proved ownership and entitlement to possession through oral and documentary evidence – Defendant failed to rebut claims of arrears or establish the existence of a valid lease – Civil suit allowed with costs, ordering ejectment and payment of arrears and damages [Paras 18–24].

Fair Rent – Use and Occupation – Damages and Interest Awarded – Plaintiff claimed arrears of ₹2,17,000/- for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022 and sought damages of ₹1,50,000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of immovable and movable properties – Defendant failed to prove payment of rent or justify continued possession – Held: Fair rent of ₹1,00,000/- per month for the building, as fixed by the Rent Control Tribunal in prior proceedings, accepted as damages for unauthorized occupation – Additional rent of ₹25,000/- for movables allowed – Plaintiff entitled to arrears with 6% interest and mesne profits [Paras 23–24].

Lease Agreement – Termination Notice – Applicability of Rent Control Act – Lease initially governed by written agreements, later continued orally after expiry in 2010 – Rent Control proceedings initiated by both parties were nullified on technical grounds as the lease was composite (building and movables) – Plaintiff subsequently issued termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Termination notice valid, and defendant had no right to continue possession post-expiry of the lease [Paras 20–23].

Procedural Delays – Defendant’s Conduct – Applications to Reopen Evidence Dismissed – Defendant sought to reopen and recall plaintiff's witness after multiple opportunities were granted for cross-examination – Defendant repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to file evidence or produce documents despite adjournments – Held: Defendant’s conduct amounted to abuse of process, justifying rejection of applications to reopen evidence – Plaintiff’s evidence remained uncontroverted [Paras 17, 19].

Decision: The Civil Suit is allowed with costs - Defendant directed to vacate and deliver possession of the schedule ‘A’ property (immovable property) and return the schedule ‘B’ property (movables) to the plaintiff immediately - Defendant directed to pay ₹2,17,000/- as arrears of rent for the period 01/06/2021 to 10/04/2022, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization - Defendant directed to pay ₹1,50,000/- per month (₹1,25,000/- for the immovable property and ₹25,000/- for the movables) from the date of the suit till delivery of possession.
 

Bail Application – Repeated Petition – No Substantial Change in Circumstances – The petitioner, facing charges under multiple sections of the BNS, filed a third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS—Previous bail applications had been dismissed—Petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantive change in circumstances—Held: Once a bail application has been rejected on merits, a subsequent bail plea without new grounds amounts to an abuse of process – Decision: Bail denied [Paras 5, 18].

Cyber Crime – Sextortion – Organized Blackmailing Racket – The complainant, a 73-year-old doctor, was blackmailed into paying ₹1.34 crore after being manipulated into an explicit video call—Petitioner’s husband allegedly part of the syndicate—Recovery of ₹6 lakhs from petitioner’s residence—Held: Petitioner’s role in laundering extorted money through bank accounts establishes prima facie involvement – Decision: Bail denied [Paras 8-11].

Cyber Crime and Sextortion – Growing Threat and Public Interest Considerations – Sextortion and digital blackmail have become a widespread cybercrime—Involvement of organized syndicates operating across different states—Held: Courts must adopt a strict approach to prevent misuse of digital platforms for blackmail and cyber fraud – Decision: Bail denied [Paras 11-13].

Evidence – Digital and Financial Trail – Prima Facie Guilt – Investigation revealed a trail of transactions linking the petitioner to the crime—Digital records, communication logs, and financial transactions showed active participation—Held: Strong prosecution evidence and absence of false implication established prima facie involvement of petitioner – Decision: Bail denied [Paras 13-17].

Parity with Co-Accused – Juveniles Granted Bail – Not Applicable – Petitioner sought parity with two juvenile co-accused who had been granted bail—Court distinguished juveniles from an adult accused—Held: Juvenile Justice Act applies differently to minors; petitioner cannot claim parity – Decision: Bail denied [Para 3].

Impact of Bail on Investigation – Risk of Tampering with Evidence – Given the organized nature of the crime, release of petitioner could impede investigation—Risk of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence—Held: Releasing petitioner would be prejudicial to justice and public interest – Decision: Bail denied [Para 14].

Decision: The High Court dismissed the third bail application, citing the absence of any new grounds justifying reconsideration. The Court emphasized the seriousness of cyber sextortion crimes and the need for deterrence. Petitioner’s role in the laundering of extorted money and connection to an organized cyber crime syndicate justified continued custody.
 

Service Law - Challenge to the disciplinary proceedings - Judicial Review – Departmental Proceedings – Limited Scope of Court’s Intervention – The petitioner challenged the findings of the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty of compulsory retirement awarded – Held: Judicial review is limited to examining whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and applicable regulations, and whether the findings are based on evidence – Interference with findings of fact in disciplinary inquiries is restricted to instances of perversity, procedural irregularity, or malafide conduct [Paras 11-14].

Proportionality of Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality Applied – The petitioner alleged that the punishment of compulsory retirement without service benefits was disproportionate to the charges proved – Held: The absence of allegations like misappropriation of funds or personal financial gain by the petitioner differentiates this case from more severe misconduct – The penalty imposed is excessive and disproportionate, necessitating judicial interference – Directions issued to reconsider the quantum of punishment [Paras 15-22].

Principles of Natural Justice – Fair Opportunity to Respond – Petitioner contended that relevant documents and evidence were not provided during the inquiry, affecting his ability to present an adequate defense – Held: The inquiry adhered to procedural fairness, and the petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to present his defense – No procedural infirmity warranting interference in the findings of the inquiry was found [Para 14].

Parity in Punishment – Inconsistent Approach by Bank Disciplinary Authority – The petitioner highlighted instances where employees accused of more serious misconduct were awarded lesser penalties – Held: While parity in punishment cannot be claimed as an absolute right, inconsistency in disciplinary measures reflects arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion – Bank must ensure consistency in disciplinary decisions to uphold the principles of fairness and equality [Paras 16, 21].

Reconsideration of Penalty – Punishment Reviewed for Disproportionality – Court held that the penalty of compulsory retirement not only terminated the petitioner’s career abruptly but also deprived him of financial and service benefits – A more measured penalty would uphold discipline while mitigating undue hardship on the petitioner – Matter remanded for reconsideration of penalty, with the court directing that no penalty of compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal be imposed [Paras 22-23].

Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed. The penalty of "compulsory retirement without service benefits" was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the penalty in accordance with law. The court directed that any fresh penalty imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of charges, and penalties of compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal from service should not be imposed.
 

Service Law – Discrimination in Allowances – Parity with Police Personnel – Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioners, Warders and Head Warders under the Home (Jail) Department, were initially granted Kit Maintenance Allowance and Ration Money Allowance under the 15th June 2017 notification, similar to police, fire, and forest personnel – However, subsequent enhancement of these allowances for police personnel was not extended to them – The matter was reviewed in a meeting chaired by the Chief Minister on 7th October 2021, wherein uniformity in allowances was recommended – Despite this, the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, rejected the proposal without assigning any reason – Held: Such exclusion is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Direction issued to extend the revised allowance benefits to all Warders and Head Warders with immediate effect [Paras 8-11] – Writ petition allowed.

Service Law – Retrospective Benefits – Claim for Arrears – Rejected – Petitioners sought arrears of enhanced allowances from 18/01/2020 and 26/04/2022 – Court held that since they approached belatedly, they were not entitled to arrears – However, direction issued for future implementation by February 2025 [Paras 12-14] – Held: No arrears shall be granted, but enhanced benefits to be implemented prospectively – Writ petition partly allowed.

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed with Directions – Government directed to extend revised Kit/Dress Allowances (₹7,500/- per annum) and Ration Money Allowance (₹2,000/- per month) to all Warders and Head Warders by end of February 2025 – No arrears granted as petitioners approached belatedly – Judgment declared as Judgment in rem, ensuring benefits to all similarly situated personnel [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating and Money Laundering – Ingredients Not Satisfied – The Applicants challenged the issuance of process under the PMLA and IPC, arguing that no criminal act was involved and the dispute arose solely due to delays in obtaining an Occupation Certificate (OC). The Court held that the contractual obligations between the parties were fulfilled, barring minor unfinished works, and payments were made as per mutual agreement. The dispute was deemed civil, not criminal. – Held: No cheating or money laundering established; process quashed. [Paras 17–38]

Territorial Jurisdiction – Invalid Order by Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri – The Court found that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the transactions and subject premises were situated in Malad. The complainant’s alleged meeting at Hotel Orchid, Vile Parle, was an afterthought to bring the case within the jurisdiction of Vile Parle Police Station. – Held: Orders passed by Andheri Magistrate and actions by Vile Parle Police Station null and void. [Paras 42.3–42.7]

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Absence of Proceeds of Crime – The Enforcement Directorate’s claim of "proceeds of crime" was rejected, as the amounts received by the Applicants were payments under contractual agreements that were substantially fulfilled. The Court criticized the ED for failing to consider evidence of compliance with agreements and acting without due diligence. – Held: No proceeds of crime or money laundering; ED’s attachment order set aside. [Paras 16–39]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Abuse of Process – The Court observed that the dispute was purely contractual, concerning delay in possession due to lack of an OC. The complainant filed civil suits for recovery of amounts, reinforcing the civil nature of the case. Criminal proceedings were deemed a misuse of the legal process. – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed; exemplary costs imposed on complainant and ED. [Paras 36–42.10]

Decision: Criminal proceedings quashed. Process issued under IPC and PMLA is set aside. Attachment of properties by ED is cancelled. Exemplary costs imposed on the complainant and ED.
 

Service Law – Promotion During Punishment Period – Eligibility Criteria – The respondent was awarded a penalty of stoppage of two increments for 30 months ending on 16.12.2017—The appellant bank reverted his promotion on the ground that he was ineligible on the date of initial promotion (14.08.2017)—Held: While an employee cannot be promoted during the currency of a penalty, once the penalty period ends, he is entitled to fresh consideration—The Promotion Committee must reassess his case based on his record as of 17.12.2017—Bank’s action of denying him promotion thereafter was unjustified—Single Judge’s order modified [Paras 25-27].

Promotion Policy – Prospective Application of New Rules – Applicability to Past Cases – The appellant relied on its 2018-19 Promotion Policy, which set 1st April as the cut-off date for eligibility—Held: The said policy was introduced prospectively and was inapplicable to promotions for 2017-18—The eligibility for promotions prior to 2018-19 must be assessed under the policy applicable at that time—Single Judge correctly held that the respondent should have been considered post 17.12.2017 [Paras 22-23].

Sexual Harassment Inquiry – Impact on Promotion – Validity of Reversion – The respondent was penalized based on a sexual harassment inquiry before the merger of his bank with SBI—After promotion, he was reverted on the ground that his punishment period was still active—Held: Though punishment bars promotion during its subsistence, a fresh consideration after its expiry was necessary—The bank’s decision to disregard the respondent’s promotion eligibility for subsequent years was arbitrary and violative of service rules [Paras 4-6, 27].

Judicial Interference in Promotion Matters – Scope of Court’s Power – Courts should not directly grant promotions but can direct reconsideration—Held: The High Court erred in granting promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017—Instead, the bank must now assess the respondent’s case for promotion from that date, ignoring the expired penalty—Promotion, if granted, will carry only notional benefits without arrears [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Impugned order modified – The respondent's promotion w.e.f. 17.12.2017 is set aside – The appellant bank directed to reconsider his case for promotion from that date, ignoring the penalty – If found fit, promotion shall be granted with notional pay fixation but no arrears – Compliance to be ensured within three months – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 29-31].