Criminal Trial – Power to Recall Witness – Application to Summon Past FIRs – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought to summon previous FIRs and related evidence against the accused during prosecution evidence stage, citing them as essential for a just decision – Held: Petition was a belated attempt to fill lacunae in prosecution case; trial already ongoing for over seven years; discretionary power under Section 348 BNSS must be exercised judiciously, not for delaying trial or surprising the defence [Paras 1-7].

Section 348 BNSS (Erstwhile Section 311 CrPC) – Judicial Discretion – Not for Lacunae Repair – High Court reiterated principles from Supreme Court in V.N. Patil vs. K. Niranjan and Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab, emphasizing that this power should be invoked only to avoid failure of justice, not to bolster weak prosecution [Paras 6-7].

Procedural Fairness – Abuse of Judicial Process – High Court Criticizes Trial Delay – The court held that belated efforts to introduce new evidence, particularly when prosecution was aware of it from inception, amounted to procedural abuse – Held: Trial courts must maintain balance and ensure no party is blindsided or prejudiced [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Error in Lower Court Order – High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of application under Section 348 BNSS, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions – Held: Petition dismissed; pending applications also disposed of [Para 8].

Election Petition – Filing Before Incompetent Forum – Limitation Not Condonable – Petition Barred – Petitioner’s election as Ward Member was challenged via an Election Petition filed before a forum lacking jurisdiction and re-presented after almost 2 years and 9 months – Held: Election Petition filed beyond the 30-day limitation was not maintainable; time spent in wrong forum cannot be condoned under Section 14 of Limitation Act as the Municipalities Act is a self-contained code excluding such provisions [Paras 23-31].

Jurisdiction of Election Tribunal – Determined by Rules and Statutory Designation – Filing Before III Additional District Judge Improper – Court ruled that only the Principal District Judge, as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules and Section 233 of the Act, was competent to entertain election petitions – Held: Petition originally filed before the III Additional District Judge was incompetent and improperly entertained [Paras 22-25].

Rejection of Election Petition – Improper Dismissal by Lower Court – Revision Allowed – Principal District Judge erred in dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of Election Petition on ground of limitation and maintainability – Held: Lower court committed legal error; impugned order set aside and Election Petition rejected [Paras 32-34].

Security Deposit – Not Considered – Issue Rendered Academic – Court refrained from ruling on whether non-deposit of security amount at filing stage was fatal, since the petition was already held barred by limitation and improperly instituted [Para 32].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Election Petition Rejected – High Court allowed revision, holding the Election Petition was time-barred and filed before a court lacking jurisdiction – Held: Impugned order dated 29.11.2023 set aside; application to reject Election Petition allowed [Para 34].
 

Civil Writ - Customs Law – Amendment of IGM – Section 30(3) of the Customs Act – Delay and Noncompliance – Amendment Permissible - The Court held that authorities failed in their statutory duty under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, to amend the Import General Manifest (IGM) despite a valid Bill of Lading showing Ludhiana as the final destination – Their reliance on a circular requiring shipping company’s request was misplaced – Such delay resulted in hardship to the petitioner importing perishable items [Paras 3-5, 26-28, 30-33].

Transshipment – Refusal to Shift Goods – Negligent Handling – Interim Relief Granted - The Court had to repeatedly intervene due to non-compliance with its directions, including transshipment orders and failure of Customs Officers and shipping line to coordinate – Goods were wrongly shifted to Saurashtra Freight Pvt. Ltd. instead of GRFL ICD, Ludhiana, leading to further delays and obstruction [Paras 11-13, 20-21, 31-33].

Refund of Customs Duty – Perishable Goods – Goods Rendered Unfit – Refund Granted – Despite Section 26A(3) Disallowing Refund - The Court held that when imported goods perish due to official delay and inaction in violation of court orders, refund of customs duty paid under protest is justified – Section 26A(3) does not bar refund in such extraordinary circumstances – The importer had placed sufficient proof of damage and disposal of goods [Paras 25, 36, 49-55].

Compensation for Damages – Negligence of Customs and Shipping Line – Principles of Bailment and Unjust Enrichment Applied – Compensation Allowed - The Court invoked principles of strict liability and unjust enrichment – Held that Customs acted as bailee with duty to preserve goods – Delay in clearance and mismanagement by authorities and shipping line led to destruction of perishable items, warranting compensation for the value of goods (`66,79,674) and refund of customs duty [Paras 50-57].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Court Orders Refund of Duty and Compensation – Customs and Shipping Company Found Liable – Court directed refund of customs duty and awarded compensation for loss of goods due to delay caused by respondents – Held that bureaucratic delay and disregard of orders caused perishable imports to deteriorate and must be compensated in writ jurisdiction [Paras 49-57].
 

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeals Against Conviction  - Sole Eyewitness – Contradictions in Testimony – Conviction Set Aside – Informant (PW3), wife of deceased, alleged dragging and joint assault by accused – Cross-examination revealed inconsistencies regarding sequence and participation – Medical evidence did not support claim of dragging – Held: Sole testimony lacked corroboration and credibility – Conviction based solely on such evidence unsustainable [Paras 60–70, 85–86].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Absence of Overt Act – Applicability Denied – PW3 admitted only one accused (now deceased) struck blows – No specific role or overt act attributed to appellants – Held: Mere presence or instigation insufficient without proof of shared intention or participation – Essential ingredients of Section 34 not satisfied – Constructive liability not attracted [Paras 71–83, 86–90].

Minor Discrepancies vs Material Contradictions – Witness Reliability – Prosecution Version Undermined – Contradictions between FIR and deposition of PW3 on presence of weapons, sequence of events, and number of assailants – Medical evidence did not corroborate dragging – Held: Contradictions went to root of matter, not minor – Witness’s version not wholly trustworthy [Paras 63–70].

Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Chaukidar Not Examined – Informant stated she first reported to village watchman – Held: Failure to examine first informant in timeline affects prosecution narrative – Independent corroboration missing – Adverse inference justified [Paras 93–96].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof in Criminal Trials – Conviction Requires Certainty – Prosecution failed to establish guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Citing principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Rang Bahadur Singh, Krishnegowda – Held: When two views are possible, one favoring innocence must be adopted – Appellants entitled to acquittal [Paras 97–105].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Anjulas Lakra (in Cr. Appeal No. 1018/2003) and Isdor Lakra (in Cr. Appeal No. 1327/2003) acquitted – Appeals abated qua deceased appellants Kuwar Lakra and Patras Lakra [Paras 106–108].

Civil Writ - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Challenge to Declaration of Land as Slum Area – Absence of Title – Declaration Upheld – Petitioners claimed tribal status and ownership over land declared as slum area in 2016 – Relied on decades-old revenue records and Village Specimen No. 2 – Held: No valid document of title or order of allotment produced – Mere entries in revenue records insufficient to establish ownership – AGRC rightly held Petitioners as unauthorized occupants [Paras 34-49, 50-51].

Delay in Challenge – Eight-Year Delay – Slum Scheme Substantially Progressed – No Interference Warranted – Notification declaring slum area issued in 2016 – Petitioners approached Court and AGRC in 2024 – Meanwhile, 2255 out of 2313 slum structures demolished – Held: Delay defeats equity – Slum scheme too advanced to halt – Reliance placed on Apex Court decision in Mansur Ali Farida Irshad Ali [Paras 57-60].

Scope of Section 3C – Declaration of Slum Area Without Prior Declaration Under Section 4 – Legally

Permissible – Petitioners argued absence of declaration under Section 4 invalidated subsequent steps – Held: Section 3C is independent and not dependent on Section 4 – Supported by precedent in Santosh Tukaram Patil – AGRC decision sustained [Paras 52-53].

Implementation on Gairan Land – Mutation in Government Name – Slum Scheme Valid – Petitioners claimed land was Gairan and not legally available for redevelopment – Held: Mutation Entry No. 4598 records land in Government name – Gairan status no longer applicable – Notification and scheme valid – Cited Santosh Madhukar Bhondve and Jagpal Singh cases distinguished [Paras 54-56].

Eviction Proceedings – Validity of Eviction Orders under Sections 33 and 38 – Confirmed – Petitioners contended eviction orders violated their rights as alleged owners – Held: No ownership proved – Orders passed after due process and rightly upheld by AGRC – No interference required [Paras 61-64].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Implementation of Slum Scheme Not to Be Halted – Court finds no merit in Petitioners’ claim of ownership or challenge to slum declaration – Petitioners entitled to rehab tenements if eligible – Scheme implementation must proceed for benefit of majority slum dwellers [Para 65].

Civil Writ - Teacher Recruitment – Validity of Selection Advertisement – Supreme Court Binding Directions – Relief Denied - Petitioners sought a direction to commence the recruitment process as per the Advertisement dated 07.12.2012 – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (2018) had already moulded relief by permitting the State to issue a fresh advertisement for remaining vacancies, thereby rendering the continuation of the 07.12.2012 advertisement untenable – Held: Petitioners’ prayer directly contravenes Supreme Court directions and is rejected [Paras 4, 6-9].

Re-Evaluation of OMR Sheets – Allegation of Malpractice in TET 2011 – Barred by Final Judgment – Petitioners prayed for re-evaluation of OMR sheets and cancellation of candidature of those using whitener – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak upheld the appointments made, and rejected reopening settled issues – Held: Prayers barred and not maintainable [Paras 5, 10].

Frivolous Litigation – Imposition of Cost – Petitions Held to be Luxury Litigation – Court observed that despite knowing the finality of the Supreme Court judgment, petitioners filed repetitive and baseless writs wasting judicial time – Held: All 6402 petitioners to pay Rs. 100 each as cost to High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, with compliance directed through deponents/pairokars [Paras 11-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – All prayers found contrary to binding precedent and settled law – All writ petitions dismissed with cost [Para 11].

Labour Law - Industrial Dispute – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Tribunal’s Award Set Aside – The Industrial Tribunal’s finding that the petitioner-workman was illegally refused employment and entitled to full back wages was based solely on the workman’s written statement, without any evidentiary basis – High Court held that the tribunal erroneously presumed termination in absence of documentary proof – Award set aside [Paras 1820, 28]. 
 
Transfer of Workman – Employer's Right to Allocate Work – Refusal by Workman – Not Termination – 
Employer offered the workman alternative positions in active departments due to closure of Roving Department – Workman’s insistence on working only in Roving Department held to be an unjustified refusal – Tribunal's failure to appreciate this amounted to error of law [Paras 14-17, 23-26]. 
 
Procedural Fairness – No Trial on Merits – Matter Remanded – Tribunal treated the act of permitting rejoining as consent to all claims including back wages – High Court held this violated principles of natural justice and deprived employer of full hearing – Directed re-trial on merits [Paras 21-22, 27-28]. 
 
Industrial Tribunal – Duty to Record Evidence – Final Award Without Trial Invalid – High Court emphasized that dispute on abandonment vs. refusal to permit joining must be adjudicated through evidence and not assumption – Remanded for fresh disposal within six months [Paras 27-28]. 
 
Decision – Award Dated 29.01.2024 Set Aside – Writ Petitions Disposed – High Court set aside the tribunal award and directed adjudication of Case No. 16 of 2020 afresh, on merits, after recording evidence from both parties [Paras 28-29]. 
 

Consumer Law - Challenge to order of NCDRC – Refund for Delay in Possession – Flat Purchaser Entitled – State Commission Order Upheld – Petitioner Builder failed to deliver flat despite investment of ₹6.5 lakhs by Respondent in 2010-2011 – State Commission ordered refund with 9% interest and compensation – NCDRC rejected delayed appeal – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 3-7].

Delay Condonation – 1132-Day Delay Not Satisfactorily Explained – Condonation Denied – National Commission found petitioners’ justification (COVID, firm dissolution, health issues, settlement talks) unsubstantiated and casual – Held: Law of limitation requires reasonable, good-faith explanation – No interference warranted by High Court [Paras 8-20].

Consumer Status – Flat Purchaser is a Consumer – Challenge Baseless – Petitioner argued Respondent not a “consumer” under the Act – Rejected: Respondent paid for residential flat and falls within definition under Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act [Para 16].

Abuse of Process Allegation – No Evidence – Dismissed as Bald Assertion – Petitioner accused Respondent of fabricating receipts and abusing law – Held: Allegations baseless, unsupported by material – Can't substitute for legal grounds [Para 16].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Relief Without Clean Hands – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Petitioners failed to act diligently, adopted “wait and watch” approach till settlement failed – Attempt to defeat execution process – Held: Writ remedy cannot aid party lacking bona fides [Paras 20, 23-24].

Consumer Law – Beneficial Legislation – Delay Defeats Purpose – Emphasis on Expeditious Resolution – Referring to Alpha G Corp. and other SC cases, Court reiterated that delay thwarts consumer justice mechanism – High threshold for condonation reaffirmed [Paras 18-29].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – NCDRC acted within law, applied correct principles – Writ petition held misconceived and dismissed without costs [Paras 30-31].
 

Civil Law – Injunction - Right to Privacy – Unauthorized Recording in Private Space – Consent Required – Partial Relief Granted – Plaintiff had consented to being recorded during the live debate but not after she exited the debate frame – Court held that the recording of the additional 18 seconds after Plaintiff withdrew was done without consent, violating her privacy under Article 21 – Video segment barred from public circulation – Interim relief granted [Paras 19-20].  

Defamation – False Attribution in Quote Tweet – Partially Defamatory – Quote Tweet by Defendant No. 1 accusing Plaintiff of “chucking the mic” and “throwing out” cameraman held untrue and lacking factual basis – Such assertions not protected by the defence of truth and must be deleted – However, statement about “abusing” the cameraman held substantially true – Partial protection granted under fair comment [Paras 22.4-22.7].

 Doctrine of Clean Hands – Suppression of Plaintiff’s Tweets – Cost Imposed – Plaintiff failed to disclose two tweets forming part of the conversation thread relevant to the case – Court held this to be suppression of material facts – Plaintiff directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- in costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association [Paras 14, 28].  

Doctored Video Allegation – Not Substantiated – Plaintiff’s claim that the impugned video was doctored found to be unsubstantiated – Local Commissioner report found no conclusive evidence of tampering – Allegation held to be an afterthought [Para 24].  

Norms of Journalistic Conduct – Personal Comments Not Covered – Quote Tweet not a journalistic article but a personal comment of Defendant No. 1 – Norms of journalistic conduct not applicable to Defendant No. 1, but applicable to Defendants 6–10 who reposted and amplified the video without verification – Take-down orders confirmed against those defendants [Paras

23.2-23.4].

 Decision – Interim Injunction Partially Allowed – Video with post-debate 18second segment barred – Defendants 1 and 2 restrained from publishing or circulating impugned segment – Defendants 6 to 10 also directed to remove same – Some parts of tweet text to be retained while defamatory phrases to be taken down – Suit to proceed on merits [Paras 25-30].