Limitation – Applicability of Extended Limitation due to COVID-19 – Petition and Appeal held to be within time - Appellant’s original petition filed during the Covid-19 limitation relaxation period as per Supreme Court directions – The Appeal filed within 90 days as provided by Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also within limitation despite Section 19(3) of Family Courts Act prescribing a shorter limitation – Appeal held to be maintainable [Paras 15-23].

Customary Divorce – Burden of Proof – Customary Divorce not Proved – Respondent failed to lead any documentary or oral evidence to establish customary divorce from first wife as required under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Mere pleading without proof rejected – The Trial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the existence and validity of customary divorce – Appellant entitled to succeed on this ground [Paras 24-39].

Impleadment of First Wife – Rule 8 of the Rules Under Hindu Marriage Act – Impleadment Not Mandatory – Court held that the first wife need not be impleaded as a co-respondent since the question was one of legal validity of marriage and not of her personal rights – The Trial Court's reliance on non-impleadment was misplaced – Appellant’s petition not defective for want of co-respondent [Paras 40-52].

Maintenance/Alimony – Maintainability of Claim by Second Wife – Though Appellant did not press for alimony, Court clarified that second wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act even where the marriage is declared void – Reference made to Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 INSC 197 – The Trial Court’s contrary view was incorrect [Para 53].

Offence of Rape – Misconception of Marriage – Respondent liable under Section 375 IPC / Section 63 BNS – Consent of appellant obtained on mistaken belief of valid marriage – Respondent’s conduct falls under ‘Fourthly’ clause of Section 375 IPC and Section 63(d)(iv) of BNS – Appellant’s mistaken belief of lawful marriage proved – Respondent committed rape punishable under Section 375/376 IPC and corresponding BNS provisions [Paras 54-58].

Desertion – Respondent’s Conduct Amounts to Desertion – Respondent failed to prosecute his restitution petition and remained unrepresented before the High Court despite due service – Court concluded that Respondent deserted the appellant and wilfully abstained from proceedings [Paras 59-62].

Trial Court Judgment – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Judgment Set Aside – Trial Court wrongly presumed appellant’s knowledge of first marriage, failed to frame necessary issues, and misapplied rules on maintenance and impleadment – Findings were contrary to settled law and unsupported by evidence – Impugned order dated 19.11.2024 set aside and appeal allowed [Paras 63-72].
 

Civil Law - Representative Suit – Non-compliance with Order I Rule 8 CPC – Suit Not Maintainable – The plaintiffs failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC for filing a representative suit, including obtaining leave of the court and public notice – Held, the suit is not maintainable as representative suit [Paras 33-35].

Limitation – Challenge to Ancient Transactions – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs challenged the sale deed of 1963 without questioning the earlier foundational sale deed of 1953 – Suit filed after lapse of over 40 years – Held, barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Paras 32-35].

Finality of Decree – Principle of Res Judicata – Suit Hit by Res Judicata – The decrees obtained in O.S.No.542/1970, O.S.No.553/1989, O.S.No.1466/1992 and confirmed in RFA Nos.79 & 80 of 2002 and SLP before Supreme Court have attained finality – Held, the challenge to decrees is barred by principles of Res Judicata [Paras 30-31].

Title and Possession – No Right Derived by Plaintiff – Agreements and GPA Invalid – The vendor of the plaintiffs (Munichikkaiah) had already alienated his share and had no subsisting title – Held, plaintiffs acquired no title or possession under agreements – Subsequent transactions invalid [Paras 2729].

Boundary Discrepancies – Claim Beyond Agreement – Inconsistency in Extent – Plaintiffs’ claim for 8 acres 3 guntas exceeded the extent in agreements (6 acres 20 guntas) – Held, the suit schedule land and claimed property do not tally – Claim rejected [Para 36].

Development and Third-Party Rights – Plaintiffs Formed Layout without Title – No Protection under Representative Capacity – Plaintiffs had formed layout and sold sites but lacked title themselves – No protection available through representative suit mechanism [Paras 28-29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Regular First Appeal fails as the suit was barred by limitation, hit by res judicata, improperly framed as a representative suit, and lacked merit on title and possession – Trial court judgment upheld [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law - Rape – Consent Based on Promise to Marry – Victim Major – Conviction Set Aside – Alleged victim engaged in consensual relationship with appellant under belief of future marriage – High Court found from ossification test (PW6) that victim was approximately 25 years old at time of incident – No evidence to show that promise was false from inception – Held: Consent not vitiated – Ingredients of Section 375 IPC not attracted [Paras 6–12, 21–25]. 
 
Delayed FIR – Lack of Prompt Disclosure – Inference of Consent – FIR filed after 5 months of pregnancy – Victim did not inform anyone immediately post incident – Court held delay and continued sexual relationship point to voluntary participation, not coercion or rape [Paras 11–13, 20, 23]. 
 
Ossification Test – No Proof of Minority – No Documentary Birth Record – Age determined as 25 years with ±2 years – Court relied on ossification test in absence of credible documentary proof – Victim held to be major at time of alleged incident – Section 375 ‘sixthly’ not applicable [Paras 9, 21]. 
 
Witness Discrepancies – Material Contradictions – Victim’s Testimony Unreliable – Court noted inconsistency in victim’s deposition and prior statements under Section 161 CrPC – Other key witnesses not examined – Medical evidence did not support forceful intercourse – Conviction held unsustainable [Paras 14–16, 24–25]. 
 
False Promise to Marry – Not Sufficient to Vitiate Consent – Awareness of Nature of Act – Victim knowingly consented to sexual act – Consent under such belief not legally invalid where no evidence of fraud or deception from inception – Relationship found consensual [Paras 22–23]. 
  
Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged – Trial Court records to be returned immediately [Paras 26–27]. 
 

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Revision against conviction - Appreciation of Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioner convicted by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court for causing death by rash and negligent driving – Revision filed challenging conviction – Held: Evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 found unreliable as their presence at accident site was doubtful – Contradictions between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony – Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report did not corroborate prosecution’s version – No proper identification of petitioner as driver – Accident possibly caused by improper riding of two-wheeler by P.W.1 – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 2-8].

Rashness and Criminal Negligence – Requirement of Proof – Concept Explained – Mere occurrence of accident or death not sufficient to infer criminal rashness or negligence – Necessity of proving reckless or grossly negligent conduct – Prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence to the required degree – Petitioner entitled to acquittal [Paras 5-8].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of all charges – Legal Aid Counsel appreciated for efforts [Paras 9-11].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Appeal against conviction - Firing in Open Court – Conviction Upheld – Heinous Act – Appellant, present in courtroom during cross murder trial, fired from close range at PW2 Ram Bharose Lal with country-made pistol – Court held act was intentional and premeditated, backed by enmity – Held: Appellant rightly convicted under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act – No case made for sentence reduction [Paras 1–6, 34–41].

Eyewitness & Injured Witness – Credibility of Testimony – Relatives Not Disqualified – Court reaffirmed that testimony of injured victim (PW2) and nephew (PW1) could not be discarded merely due to relationship – PW2's presence undisputed, bullet still lodged in body during statement recording – His testimony corroborated by medical and investigative evidence – Held: Reliable and sufficient for conviction [Paras 23–30, 34–39].

Weapon Recovery – Arrest on Spot – Close Range Injury – Evidentiary Chain Intact – Appellant caught with loaded firearm inside courtroom – Recovery of five live cartridges and spent shell corroborated by seizure memo – Charring and tattooing on wound confirmed close-range shot – Held: Recovery and medical evidence strengthened prosecution case [Paras 4–6, 35–37].

Defective Investigation – Not Fatal – Courtroom Attack With Eyewitnesses – Alleged lapses like missing ballistic report or police staff testimony held immaterial in light of direct, cogent, and prompt evidence – Reliance placed on multiple SC precedents confirming that defective investigation alone doesn't vitiate trial where guilt is otherwise established [Paras 30–34, 39].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC (life imprisonment) and Section 25 Arms Act (three years RI) upheld – Sentences to run concurrently – No scope for leniency given the gravity and setting of the crime – Courtroom attack considered a severe threat to the justice system [Paras 43–45].
 

Civil - Excise License – Fraudulent Transfer of FL-II License – License Restored – Collector’s Cancellation Upheld – Petitioners alleged impersonation and forgery in the transfer of their liquor license to Respondents 4 & 5 – Court found forged Aadhaar Card, mismatched signatures, and impersonation established by Excise Department’s inquiry – Transfer held void ab initio and Collector’s cancellation order restored [Paras 1–10, 16–24, 30–31].

Impersonation and Forgery – Excise Inquiry Confirmed Fabricated Documents – Petitioners established that affidavits, power of attorney, and ID proofs were falsified to impersonate original license holder – Excise Inspector admitted error in identity verification – Findings of Deputy Superintendent Inquiry accepted by Court [Paras 17–23].

Fraud Vitiates All – Authority Has Inherent Power to Recall Fraudulent Orders – Court invoked principles from Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres and A.V. Papayya Sastry – Held: Even in absence of express review power, fraud permits recall – Fraudulently secured license cannot be legitimized by administrative oversight [Paras 24–26, 28–29].

Revisional Authority’s Failure – Non-Application of Mind – Decision Set Aside – Revisional Authority relied on vague police report, ignoring documentary proof of impersonation and Excise findings – Court held this to be a perverse and legally unsustainable approach [Paras 27, 30].

Relief – Restoration to Status Quo Ante – License Returned to Genuine Holder – Impugned orders quashed – License to be reinstated in petitioner’s name – Stay refused considering fraud proved on record [Paras 30–33].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) – Orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities quashed – License to be restored to the petitioners – Request for stay rejected [Paras 30–33].
 

Civil Writ - Challenge to Selection Process – Alleged Irregularities in Evaluation – Dismissed – Petitioners contended that there were discrepancies in marks, improper scaling, and procedural irregularities – Court held that the selection process was conducted as per rules and in absence of specific material irregularities, challenge was liable to be rejected [Paras 39-48].

Reservation Policy – Implementation of Horizontal Reservation – Properly Applied – Petitioners alleged violation of horizontal reservation for female, EBC, SC, and ST candidates – Court held that the Commission had correctly applied horizontal reservation in compliance with rules and government instructions [Paras 49-58].

Equivalence of Degrees – B.Tech Degree Holders Treated as Graduates – Valid – Petitioners raised objection regarding qualification criteria and equivalence of B.Tech degree – Court affirmed that B.Tech degree is equivalent to a graduate degree for the purpose of eligibility – Petitioners’ contention rejected [Paras 59-64].

Errors in OMR Evaluation and Rechecking – Commission's Stand Accepted – Petitioners challenged the Commission’s refusal to permit rechecking of OMR sheets – Court held that under the Rules, there is no provision for rechecking of OMR and evaluation was conducted correctly – Commission's process upheld [Paras 65-69].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process – Selection process affirmed – All petitions dismissed with no interference called for [Paras 70-72].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax Act – Reassessment Proceedings – Allegation of Sham Transactions – Notice Quashed – The Revenue sought to reopen the assessment under Sections 148, 148A(b) and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act alleging that the petitioner engaged in sham transactions related to JM Balanced Fund to create fictitious capital loss – The Court found that the petitioner had not transacted in JM Balanced Fund but in JM Equity Hybrid Fund, which was not even part of the Revenue’s allegations – Held that reopening was without live link or nexus between information and petitioner’s transactions – Notice and consequential order quashed [Paras 5-14].

Reassessment – Absence of Live Link – Reopening Held Invalid – The Court observed that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not establish any rational connection with the petitioner’s actual transactions – Allegations of sham transactions were general and pertained to JM Balanced Fund whereas petitioner dealt in JM Equity Hybrid Fund – Applying principles from Karan Maheshwari v. ACIT, Bombay High Court, reopening was held bad in law [Paras 11-13].

Natural Justice – Denial of Information – Order Passed Without Providing Material – It was held that crucial documents relied upon by the Revenue during survey under Section 133A were never furnished to the petitioner despite specific requests, rendering the proceedings violative of principles of natural justice – Reassessment proceedings vitiated [Paras 8-9].

Final Order – Notice and Order Quashed – Assessment Proceedings Terminated – The impugned notice dated 10/03/2022 under Section 148A(b), order dated 06/04/2022 under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were quashed and set aside – Petition allowed [Para 14].

Civil Writ - Rejection of Appointment - Public Recruitment – Biometric Mismatch – Candidate’s Identity Not Disputed – Rejection Unwarranted – Petitioners' biometric data failed to match at exam exit/document verification but matched at entry – LIC rejected appointment solely based on TCS biometric report – Held: Identity not disputed, no fraud alleged – Biometric mismatch cannot override other reliable ID proofs [Paras 4–6, 11–12, 22].

Natural Justice – Non-furnishing of Adverse Report – Violation of Fair Hearing – TCS biometric report not supplied to petitioners despite forming basis for rejection – Held: LIC’s failure to share report breached natural justice, prejudiced petitioners' rights – Report not filed in Court either [Paras 12, 16].

Necessary Party – Role of Verification Agency – TCS Not Indispensable – LIC argued non-joinder of TCS – Held: TCS acted as agent executing LIC’s directions – Petition maintainable without impleading TCS – Responsibility remained with LIC [Paras 7, 15].

Validity of Recruitment Clause – Finality to Biometric Results – Clause Unreasonable – Held: Clause making biometric decision “binding” on candidates is arbitrary – Technology cannot trump identity proofs – Person’s legal rights cannot depend solely on machine recognition [Paras 17–21].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Appointment Ordered – Court quashed LIC’s rejection order – Directed LIC to verify petitioners’ identity using official documents and issue appointment within four weeks – Consequential benefits allowed except monetary arrears [Paras 22–24].