Maintenance – Income Assessment – Section 125 CrPC – Family Court awarded Rs. 22,000 per month to wife based on net salary of Rs. 90,562 of the petitioner – High Court held award constitutes ~25% of net income, consistent with guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha – Upheld as fair and reasonable [Paras 5, 7].

Matrimonial Dispute – Desertion – Petitioner argued wife had deserted him and was unwilling to reconcile – High Court held that unless desertion is adjudicated under Section 9 HMA in pending Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020, maintenance cannot be denied – Allegations of desertion alone not sufficient to bar entitlement [Paras 4, 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Court reiterated that in exercise of revisional powers, it cannot reappreciate factual findings unless there is patent illegality or material irregularity – No such error found in the trial court’s maintenance order – Revision dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Maintenance Claim – Alleged unwillingness to reconcile or prior settlement proceedings cannot negate statutory entitlement to maintenance – Trial court’s findings based on admitted income and legal entitlement upheld [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Judicial Officers – Disciplinary Proceedings – Bail Order – Alleged Extraneous Motive – Charge of Misconduct – NDPS Act – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – Rule 16, CCA Rules, 1958 – Officer dismissed for allegedly granting bail to accused under NDPS Act with oblique motive upon change of advocate – Enquiry Officer held charge proved – Full Court accepted report and recommended dismissal – Governor passed dismissal order – Held: The bail order was a statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., not based on discretion or favouritism – No charge-sheet filed within 90 days; officer was bound by law to grant bail – Allegation of extraneous consideration baseless [Paras 21–33].

Evidence – Perversity of Findings – Use of Extraneous Material – Enquiry Officer relied on irrelevant bail orders of other accused (Ramesh and Ayub) not forming part of charge – Held: Findings based on extraneous and irrelevant evidence – Such reliance vitiates enquiry report – No reasonable person could reach conclusion of guilt on record evidence [Paras 34–38].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Article 311(2) – Opportunity before Full Court was granted; petitioner failed to avail – No further hearing required at stage of punishment by Governor – Governor’s order not invalid for want of speaking order – Full Court’s administrative decision deemed to have been made after due application of mind [Paras 40–42].

Vague Charge – Extraneous Consideration Not Particularized – Judicial Independence – Charge alleging “oblique motive” unsupported by any evidence of specific motive or benefit – Following Abhay Jain v. Rajasthan High Court, (2022) 13 SCC 1, and Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad – Held: Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers cannot be based merely on judicial orders unless tainted by proven malice or corruption – Findings suffer from perversity [Paras 33–34].

Judicial Review – Scope under Articles 226 & 227 – High Court not to act as appellate court over Full Court’s administrative decision unless process is vitiated by perversity or violation of procedure – However, where enquiry findings are arbitrary and unsupported by evidence, interference justified [Paras 36–38].

Relief – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Dismissal order dated 08.04.2010 set aside – Petitioner deemed reinstated till retirement (28.02.2011) – Entitled to full back wages, continuity of service, and consequential pensionary benefits to legal heirs [Paras 44–46].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Enquiry report, Full Court resolutions, and Governor’s dismissal order quashed – Petitioner deemed reinstated with full back wages and all consequential benefits – Pensionary benefits to be paid to family of deceased officer [Para 46].

Criminal Law – Child Trafficking – Cancellation of Bail – Grave Offence – Modus Operandi of Organized Crime Syndicate – Bail Granted by Trial Court Set Aside – FIR revealed inter-State infant trafficking network with accused persons involved in procurement, delivery, and sale of newborns from poor families for profit – Trial Court granted bail to two accused (Pooja and Bimla) without proper consideration of the seriousness of offence or role of accused – High Court held that the impugned orders were mechanically passed and failed to assess parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad and Pinki – Bail orders cancelled and accused directed to surrender [Paras 2–14, 38–39, 41–46, 55–61].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Jurisprudence – Factors for Grant and Cancellation – High Court Emphasizes Need to Consider Public Interest, Risk of Witness Tampering, and Offence Gravity – Trial Court erred in granting bail solely on ground that charge sheet was filed and no further custodial interrogation was needed – Held: Filing of charge sheet is not the sole test for granting bail – Risk of absconding, destruction of evidence, and societal impact must be weighed [Paras 45–50, 55].

Evidence – CDRs, WhatsApp Chats and Video Footage – Destruction of Mobile Phones by Accused – Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Against Respondents Upheld – Court noted mobile data, call records, money transfers, and video footage placed on record – Alleged destruction of phones showed consciousness of guilt – Prima facie links between co-accused (Pooja and Bimla) established through digital evidence and co-accused statements – Bail granted despite such material found unsustainable [Paras 19–21, 25, 42–44, 57–58].

Human Trafficking – Adoption as Defence – Rejected at Bail Stage – Judicial Caution Mandated – Defence plea that infants were given in adoption rejected – Court held that claim cannot overshadow serious allegations of trafficking and is matter for trial – Held: In cases involving vulnerable victims (infants), strict scrutiny and protective approach necessary at bail stage [Paras 47–48].

Precedent – Ashok Dhankad and Pinki Cases Applied – Grave Offences Demand Heightened Judicial Scrutiny – Court reiterated principles from Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Pinki v. State of U.P. – Bail in cases of grave offences like child trafficking must consider societal impact and risk of recurrence – Mechanical grant of bail undermines public confidence in justice system [Paras 48–52].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Impugned bail orders dated 22.07.2025 (Bimla) and 30.07.2025 (Pooja) set aside – Respondents directed to surrender within 7 days – Trial Court directed to proceed with expeditious trial – Observations confined to bail proceedings and not to influence merits of trial [Paras 60–65].

Civil Law – Suit For Recovery - Limitation – Acknowledgment of Debt – Barred Suit – Plaintiff relied on alleged last payment of ₹4,080 on 18.07.1992 as acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Trial Court held the document (Ex-A10) untrustworthy due to surrounding circumstances and timing amid criminal litigation between parties – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove valid acknowledgment – Suit filed on 17.07.1995 is barred by limitation [Paras 14, 21–25].

Negotiable Instruments – Inchoate Instrument – Section 20 NI Act – One promissory note (Ex-A5) left blank in the promisee column though duly stamped and signed – Plaintiff failed to fill in promisee’s name before filing suit – Held: Document incomplete and unenforceable – Section 20 does not rescue claim absent completed instrument at time of suit – No decree can be granted on incomplete negotiable instrument [Paras 18–19].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act – Defendants admitted borrowal of ₹2,04,000 in reply notice (Ex-A9) but claimed it was paid via Ashok Sharma and related to another entity – Held: Presumption under Section 118 applies to Ex-A2 to A4, which were in plaintiff’s name and not rebutted by acceptable evidence – However, relief denied due to bar of limitation and defects in Ex-A5 [Paras 15–17].

Civil Procedure – Verification of Pleadings – Inconsistency in description of plaintiff's status—Suit filed as "Proprietor" but verified as "Partner/Manager"—Held: Unexplained ambiguity in business structure and verification creates procedural defect—Plaintiff failed to clarify firm status even after remand—Trial Court rightly found plaint defective [Para 26].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Against Dismissal – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court dismissed suit after remand for failure to prove limitation and validity of documents – High Court found no perversity in Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence – Held: No reason to interfere with findings—Appeal dismissed [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court dated 04/09/2013 in O.S. No. 5989 of 1997 upheld – Suit barred by limitation and based on incomplete documents – Defendants entitled to recover deposit amount with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn – No order as to costs.

Prevention of Money Laundering – Provisional Attachment – Jurisdiction of ED – Existence of Scheduled Offence – ED’s provisional attachment of Rs. 122.74 crores challenged on ground that allotment of preferential shares and related proceeds not mentioned in FIR or ECIR – High Court held that once scheduled offence (under IPC Sections 420, 120B) is registered and chargesheet filed, ED's jurisdiction under Section 5 PMLA is valid – PAO held to be within powers of ED [Paras 36–38, 45].

Money Laundering – Scope of ‘Proceeds of Crime’ – Indirect Derivation – Preferential share sale proceeds traced to misrepresentation before Ministry of Coal and BSE – Court held that under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA, property indirectly obtained via scheduled offence is also 'proceeds of crime' – Appreciation in share price due to false public declaration before BSE is directly linked to predicate offence – Gains from sale held liable to attachment [Paras 35, 39–41, 44].

Attachment under PMLA – Not Dependent on Prior Action under Section 66(2) – Learned Single Judge erred in holding that ED’s failure to inform jurisdictional police under Section 66(2) PMLA vitiated the PAO – Division Bench held Section 66(2) is directory, not mandatory – ED’s powers under Section 5 are independent and preventive in nature – Delay or omission under Section 66(2) does not invalidate attachment [Paras 48–55].

Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 – Alternative Remedy Available – Single Judge exercised writ jurisdiction to quash PAO despite existence of statutory remedy under Sections 8, 26, 42 of PMLA – Division Bench held such interference inappropriate – Petition involved disputed facts, and attachment was still under adjudication – Writ petition not maintainable under principles in Whirlpool v. Registrar of Trademarks [Paras 19–29].

Continuing Offence – Money Laundering as an Independent Crime – Court held that offence under Section 3 of PMLA is not contingent on trial outcome in predicate offence – Money laundering continues as long as accused possesses, uses, or enjoys tainted property – Misrepresentation, share allotment, and profits formed part of a chain of connected acts [Paras 43–45, 49–50].

Constitutional Protection – Article 20(1) – Not Violated – Respondent’s argument that scheduled offences were added to PMLA only after the alleged acts (2007–08) was rejected – Court held money laundering is a continuing offence – Application of PMLA to ongoing possession of proceeds post-2009 not barred by Article 20(1) [Para 50].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge quashing Provisional Attachment Order set aside – Attachment of property under Section 5 PMLA restored – Observations limited to adjudication of the present appeals and shall not affect ongoing or future proceedings [Paras 56–59].

SARFAESI Act – Delay in Filing Securitisation Applications – Limitation Act Applicability – Section 17 Proceedings Are Original in Nature – DRT Has Jurisdiction to Condon Delay – Borrowers filed writ petitions challenging DRT orders rejecting their SAs for delay beyond 45 days – Petitioners argued that the DRT erred in holding that it lacked power to condone delay – Held: There is no express exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act in SARFAESI – Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies – Provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 apply to applications under Section 17 – DRT is a judicial forum and proceedings under Section 17 are original in nature – Borrowers cannot be non-suited merely on technical delay [Paras A-24, A-28, C-1, C-2]

SARFAESI and RDB Acts – Harmonious Construction – DRT Jurisdiction – Both Acts Complementary – Borrowers’ Right to Fair Adjudication Requires Delay Condonation Where Justified – Courts emphasized that the SARFAESI and RDB Acts operate in the same field and DRT has overlapping jurisdiction – When banks/financial institutions can seek benefit of Limitation Act under RDB Act, same cannot be denied to borrowers under SARFAESI – Tribunal cannot mechanically reject SAs without examining grounds for delay [Paras A-17 to A-21, A-30]

Interpretation of Special Laws – Section 29(2) of Limitation Act – No Express Exclusion in SARFAESI – Hence, Sections 4 to 24 Apply – Court held that in absence of express exclusion, general limitation provisions remain applicable – Provisions of Limitation Act to be read as supplementing SARFAESI – DRT can condone delay based on judicial discretion [Paras A-23, A-24, A-45]

COVID-19 Pandemic and Practical Difficulties – Consideration of Bonafide Delay Grounds – Technical View Not Justified – Court observed that borrowers often explore loan settlement or OTS schemes, during which time limitation may expire – Physical absence of DRT at local seats and pandemic-related disruptions further justified delay – Such factors must be considered while applying limitation principles [Paras A-31, P-7 to P-9]

Precedents Followed – Apex Court Rulings in Transcore, Mardia Chemicals, Consolidated Engineering, Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal, M.P. Steel Corporation – High Court in Fair Style Embroidery Works – All Support Applicability of Limitation Act to SARFAESI Proceedings – Ratio of Supreme Court judgments confirms that Limitation Act applies to original proceedings before Tribunals unless expressly excluded – Section 5 applicable for condonation of delay, and Section 14 for exclusion of time due to bona fide proceedings [Paras A-32 to A-36, A-41, A-42]

Decision: Miscellaneous Petition No. 6432 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 4104 of 2023 allowed – Impugned DRT orders set aside – Matters remanded to DRT for deciding Section 5 Limitation Act applications afresh – Review Petition No. 453 of 2024 dismissed [Para C-3]

Education Law – D.El.Ed. Eligibility – Government Order – Judicial Review – Prospective Quashing of G.O. – Restored – Learned Single Judge quashed Clause 4(1) of the Government Order dated 09.09.2024 prescribing graduation as minimum eligibility for D.El.Ed. course – Held: State Government empowered under Clause 3.3 of NCTE Regulations, 2014 to frame policy on admissions – Graduation-based eligibility prescribed consistently since 1998 – Not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 – Quashing order unsustainable [Paras 1, 6, 19, 20, 25–27, 32–34]

Training – Interpretation of Rules – Rule 2(q) of 1981 Rules – Eligibility for Training Must Be Read with Graduation Requirement – Challenge Not Raised – “Training” under Rule 2(q) means courses for which only graduates are eligible – Respondents did not challenge Rule 2(q) – Hence, State justified in aligning D.El.Ed. admission eligibility with Service Rules for teacher appointments [Paras 25–27]

NCTE Regulations vs State Policy – Harmonious Construction – State May Prescribe Higher Qualification – NCTE Regulations prescribe higher secondary as minimum eligibility but allow State policies to determine admission process – Held: NCTE norms are minimum standards – State may prescribe higher qualifications, provided they are not lower than NCTE's – Policy prescription of graduation not ultra vires [Paras 17–19, 25]

Administrative Law – Procedural Fairness – Amendment Application Allowed – Decision Rendered Without Granting Time to Respond – State was not granted opportunity to file a counter to amended writ petition – Judgment passed within a week of amendment – Held: Denial of fair opportunity to defend Government Order also vitiates findings of learned Single Judge [Paras 10, 32]

Comparative Courses – D.El.Ed. vs D.El.Ed. (Special Education) – Flawed Equivalence – No material to show DIETs conduct D.El.Ed. (Special Education) – Learned Single Judge’s reliance on this distinction misplaced – Conclusion on arbitrariness based on false parity discarded [Paras 7, 11, 32]

Delay Condonation – Special Appeal – Procedural Delays Explained – No Objection by Respondents – Delay Condoned – 50-day delay explained through inter-departmental approvals – Not opposed by respondents – Delay in filing appeal condoned [Paras 1–3]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 24528 of 2024 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Clause 4(1) of Government Order dated 09.09.2024 upheld as constitutionally valid.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Acquittal – Respondent No. 2 accused of showing obscene videos and attempting to molest a minor girl – FIR lodged after delay of 4 days – No medical evidence or certified age document produced to prove minority of victim – Photocopy of birth certificate not verified per statutory requirement – Held: Prosecution failed to establish victim’s age under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of JJ Rules – Absence of proof of age fatal to prosecution under POCSO [Paras 10–14, 28]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Trial Court had acquitted respondent on findings that victim’s testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated – No recovery of mobile phone, video, or other evidence – Witnesses other than victim were hearsay – Delay in lodging FIR not explained – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view supported by record – Appellate court not to interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No compelling reason found to reverse acquittal [Paras 15–29]

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – Victim’s version introduced for first time during examination-in-chief not supported by earlier Section 161/164 CrPC statements – Contradictions noted in testimony – Recovery not made – Investigating Officer admitted lapses in probe and failure to verify key evidence – Held: Prosecution evidence lacked consistency and credibility – Trial Court justified in treating evidence as insufficient [Paras 18, 28]

Burden of Proof – Failure of Prosecution – Held: Burden to prove guilt always lies on prosecution – Minor inconsistencies could be ignored, but failure to prove key ingredients (age, recovery, corroboration) undermines case – Burden never shifts unless prima facie case made – Trial Court’s reasoning not contrary to settled law [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No. 2 upheld – No interference warranted by appellate court – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasoned view based on evidence.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Appeal against concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts granting injunction against encroachment on Abadi Deh land – Held: No substantial question of law involved – High Court cannot interfere with pure findings of fact unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Property Law – Abadi Deh Land – Ownership and Possession – Plaintiff proved ownership of Khasra No. 44 and joint proprietary rights in Abadi Deh land (Khasra No. 54) – Site plan and oral evidence proved encroachment by defendants on portion marked ‘ABCD’ – Defendants violated compromise to measure land before construction – Held: Plaintiff entitled to protection and restoration of possession [Paras 8–10].

Injunction – Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiff initially sought only permanent injunction, but replication raised issue of ongoing illegal construction – Court exercised power under Order VII Rule 7 CPC to mould relief – Held: Mandatory injunction justified where encroachment proved and issue raised during trial – No prejudice caused to defendants [Para 11].

Pleadings and Evidence – Credibility of Witnesses – Defendants’ witnesses gave inconsistent evidence and contradicted own pleadings – Plaintiff’s witnesses supported site plan and compromise – Held: Trial court rightly relied on consistent and trustworthy plaintiff evidence – No error found in appreciation of facts [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings upheld – Plaintiff’s entitlement to permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction affirmed – Pending applications also disposed of.