SARFAESI Act – Possession without Proper Delegation – Violation of Section 14(1-A) – Possession by Additional Commissioner of Police without being an officer subordinate to the District Magistrate (ADM) – ADM's order delegating powers found beyond statutory limit – Held: Possession taken contrary to the SARFAESI Act and violative of Article 300A – Illegal possession set aside [Paras 18-22].

Movable Property Seizure – Absence of Notice – Deprivation without Due Process – Petitioners dispossessed of movable assets without notice or proper proceedings – Failure to comply with express directions of DRT and ADM to serve notice on all guarantors – Held: Violation of mandatory requirement of law and breach of Article 300A rights [Paras 21-22].

Writ Maintainability – Alternative Remedy Not a Bar – Availability of remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI Act does not preclude writ when possession is taken illegally – State machinery and police involved in deprivation without lawful authority – Held: Writ petition maintainable in the facts of the case [Paras 15, 20, 23].

Police Involvement – Unauthorized Assistance to Recovery Agents – Police acted without proper delegation under Section 14 – Possession proceedings conducted solely by recovery agents with police aid – No ADM or properly delegated officer present during possession – Held: Process vitiated for want of lawful authority – Supreme Court ruling in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur applied [Paras 11-13, 24].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Possession proceedings quashed – Liberty granted to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in compliance with Section 14(1-A) of SARFAESI Act – ADM directed to oversee future compliance – Petition disposed of accordingly [Para 25].

LL.B. Course – Delay in Completion – Ordinance 7(c)(3) – Student Allowed to Appear in Back Paper Beyond Six-Year Limit – Withholding of Result Unjustified – The University, after allowing the student to appear in the back paper and issuing a provisional admit card, attempted to withhold the result citing the six-year completion rule – Held: Once the University permitted appearance and did not act within time to stop the examination, it could not later withhold the result based on eligibility grounds – Court ruled in favour of the student and upheld the Single Judge’s order directing issuance of mark-sheet and degree [Paras 2-4, 13-18].

University’s Duty – Scrutiny of Eligibility – Procedural Responsibility – Lack of Verification Cannot Prejudice Student – The Court held that the responsibility to verify eligibility lay with the University or affiliated college before permitting exam appearance – Lapse in duty could not justify denial of the result after successful completion of examination [Paras 15-18].

Provisional Admit Card – Interpretation of Clauses – Non-fabrication Clause Critical – The Court interpreted the “subject to eligibility” clause as applicable in cases of fraudulent conduct by the student – Since no fabrication was alleged, the clause could not justify result detention [Para 13-14].

Lis Between Student and University – Estoppel and Conduct – Conduct of University Estops It from Withholding Result – The Court held that the University's inaction and subsequent change of stand amounted to estoppel and it could not disadvantage the student after he had completed the course and cleared the examination [Para 18-22].

Precedent Application – Reliance on Shri Krishnan, Sanatan Gauda, Guru Nanak Dev Cases – Wherein Students Were Allowed Relief After Procedural Lapses by Institutions – The Court followed binding precedent from the Supreme Court in similarly situated matters and held that the facts warranted equitable relief in favour of the student [Paras 23-24].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the University’s special appeal – Directed the University to release the mark-sheet and degree accordingly [Para 25].
 

Passports Act – Renewal of Passport – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner, an Indian citizen residing in the USA, sought renewal of his passport bearing No. M5407876, which was due to expire on 08.09.2025 – Renewal was denied by the Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru (Respondent No.2) due to pending criminal proceedings under Sections 354A, 354D, 504, and 420 IPC – Held: Mere pendency of a criminal complaint under investigation does not attract the bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 – The embargo applies only when cognizance has been taken by the Court – Reliance placed on Sharath Chandrasekhar v. Union of India (WP No. 18066/2023, decided on 14.02.2024) – Writ of Mandamus issued directing respondents to consider the reissuance of the passport if all other conditions are satisfied [Paras 3-5].

Legal Precedent – Applicability of Prior Rulings – Karnataka High Court had previously held that the refusal of a passport renewal is not justified solely on the ground of a pending investigation – Official Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and Notification dated 25.08.1993 considered – Held: Unless cognizance of the offence has been taken by a competent Court, the denial of passport renewal is not legally tenable [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to process the reissuance of the petitioner’s passport, subject to all other conditions being met – Compliance to be ensured within one week from the receipt of the Court’s order [Paras 5].
 

Criminal Law - Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act – Unauthorized Construction – Tenant’s Liability – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners were convicted under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 by the Learned Municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta, for allegedly constructing an unauthorized two-storied building at 14/5, B.T. Road, Kolkata – Conviction upheld by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bench – II, City Sessions Court – Petitioners contended that they were tenants, not builders of the alleged unauthorized structure – Held: No credible evidence established that the petitioners constructed the unauthorized building – Prosecution failed to prove the specific time, date, or year of construction – Absence of a sanctioned plan alone does not establish culpability without proof of actual construction – Revision allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 21-29].

Burden of Proof – Standard in Criminal Trials – Unauthorized Construction Cases – Prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were responsible for the unauthorized construction – Evidence merely suggesting occupancy or trespassing insufficient – Report filed by Kolkata Municipal Corporation engineers in WPA No. 22957/2023 stated that the building was over twenty years old with no recent construction – Held: Prosecution’s failure to prove that petitioners constructed the structure warranted acquittal – Conviction set aside [Paras 24-28].

Judicial Interference – Appellate & Revisional Courts – Conviction without Cogent Evidence – Trial Court concluded that the building was unsafe based on accused’s failure to prove its stability – High Court held such inference unsustainable – Mere possession of a property does not establish liability for unauthorized construction unless proven – Lower courts’ reliance on assumptions rather than direct evidence unjustified – Conviction quashed [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Lower court orders reversed [Paras 29-30].

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Equivalence of Qualifications – Diploma and B.Tech in Civil Engineering – Petitioners disqualified from selection to the post of Surveyor Grade II in KWA on the ground that their qualifications (Diploma and B.Tech in Civil Engineering) were not equivalent or presupposed the lower prescribed qualification of National Trade Certificate (NTC) – Petitioners relied on Government Orders issued by Higher Education Department declaring Diploma and B.Tech as higher qualifications – Held: As per Rule 10(a)(ii) KS&SSR, only qualifications declared by competent authority—i.e., Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department—can be relied upon – Higher Education Department lacks authority to declare equivalence or sufficiency – Exts. P4 to P6 cannot form basis for eligibility [Paras 7-10]

Recruitment – Role of Competent Authority – PSC and Government – Division Bench holds that only Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of Government and PSC are competent to assess and determine sufficiency of qualifications under Rule 10(a)(ii) KS&SSR – Other departmental orders are merely recommendatory – Exts. P4 to P6 issued by Higher Education Department are ultra vires [Paras 9-10]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Recruitment Process – Court reiterates limited scope of judicial review in recruitment matters – Review restricted to checking whether PSC and Government applied correct legal test (Jyoti K.K. test) – No retrospective application of Government or PSC decisions unless made before issuance of recruitment notification [Para 9]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments in W.P.(C) Nos. 2159 and 12312 of 2025 set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Orders of disqualification upheld – Government Orders relied upon by writ petitioners held incompetent and without binding effect on PSC.

Criminal Law – Protection of Public Servants – Sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Proceedings Partially Quashed - Petitioners were police officers accused of misconduct during their official duty at a public event – A private complaint was filed against them after they registered an FIR against the complainant’s husband – Trial court took cognizance of multiple offences, rejecting the need for sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Held: Since the alleged acts were committed in the discharge of official duties, sanction was required for most offences – Decision: Cognizance set aside for all offences except under Sections 354 and 354B IPC [Paras 7-10, 24-28].

Scope of Official Duty – Acts Done in Excess – Test for Sanction under Section 197 CrPC - Court examined whether the alleged misconduct had a reasonable nexus with official duties – Held: Even if a public servant exceeds his duty, as long as there is a connection with official functions, sanction is required – Decision: Official actions taken by the petitioners warranted protection under Section 197 CrPC, barring exceptions for certain offences [Paras 9-17].

Public Order and State Notification – Kerala Police Officers Covered Under Section 197(2) & (3) CrPC - The trial court held that police officers were not entitled to protection under Section 197 – Court referred to a Kerala government notification extending such protection to police personnel maintaining public order – Held: The petitioners were covered under the notification and thus required prior sanction for prosecution – Decision: Trial court’s view on the non-applicability of Section 197 CrPC was incorrect [Paras 26-27].
 

Criminal Law - Appeals against the conviction - Sections 498-A and 306 IPC  -Cruelty and Harassment – Demand for Dowry – No Specific Evidence – Acquittal – The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed and beaten by her husband and mother-in-law for bringing insufficient dowry – Witnesses made general and vague allegations without specific instances of cruelty – Contradictions in prosecution witnesses regarding the demand for dowry and payment of money – No independent evidence corroborating harassment – Held: Mere vague allegations without details of time, place, or nature of cruelty cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498-A IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 13-17, 23-27].

Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – No Direct Instigation – No Mens Rea – Suicide Not Solely Attributable to Accused – The deceased consumed poison, but there was no evidence of direct or proximate instigation by the accused – No suicide note or specific act compelling the deceased to take the extreme step – Relationship between the deceased and her husband appeared cordial as per evidence – Held: A conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear instigation or circumstances leaving no alternative but suicide – Mere allegations of discord in matrimonial life do not constitute abetment – Conviction set aside [Paras 18-22, 36-38].

Presumption Under Section 113A of the Evidence Act – Applicability – Requires Proof of Cruelty – No Automatic Presumption – The prosecution argued that since the suicide occurred within seven years of marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act should apply – However, the presumption is discretionary and requires proof of cruelty – Inconsistent statements and lack of medical evidence for alleged injuries of the deceased create doubt – Held: The presumption under Section 113A cannot be invoked in the absence of clear evidence of cruelty – Acquittal granted [Paras 29-33, 39-40].

Judicial Approach in Matrimonial Disputes – General Allegations Against Husband’s Family – Risk of Misuse – Courts must scrutinize allegations carefully – Statements from prosecution witnesses were vague and lacked specific details – Conduct of deceased suggested no ongoing harassment – Witnesses admitted the deceased appeared happy and was willingly visiting her matrimonial home – Held: In matrimonial disputes, courts must guard against false implication by vague allegations – Benefit of doubt given to accused – Conviction set aside [Paras 34-35, 41-44].

Decision: The appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are set aside. The fine amount is to be refunded after the appeal period expires unless an appeal is filed before the Supreme Court. The accused shall furnish bail bonds as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C., ensuring their presence in case of further proceedings.

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest without FIR or Grounds of Arrest – Detention Declared Illegal – The detenu was picked up without any FIR or communication of reasons for arrest – FIR was registered hours later, only after a Warrant Officer’s intervention – Held: Arrest violated Articles 21 and 22 and Section 47 of BNSS – Detention declared void ab initio [Paras 1–6, 16–17].

BNSS Compliance – Section 35 and 47 – No Notice or Written Grounds of Arrest – Procedural Safeguards Violated – No notice under Section 35(3) issued – Grounds of arrest not communicated forthwith – Arrest held contrary to statutory and constitutional safeguards – Mere post-facto FIR registration cannot cure illegality [Paras 4, 17].

Judicial Interpretation – Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar – Written Communication of Grounds Mandatory – Court relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 – Held: Failure to inform arrestee of arrest grounds in writing vitiates custody – Procedural compliance essential to protect liberty under Articles 21 & 22 [Paras 14–15].

Custodial Dignity – Routine Arrest Without Justification Not Permissible – Citing Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and D.K. Basu, Court reiterated that power to arrest must be exercised with caution and justification – Custodial action impacts reputation and liberty and must conform to due process [Paras 7, 10–11].

Role of Warrant Officer – Ministerial Capacity Only – Overstepping Jurisdiction Deprecated – Court clarified that a Warrant Officer cannot adjudicate legality of arrest – Findings in Warrant Officer’s report regarding legality were beyond mandate and disapproved by the Court [Para 20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Detention declared illegal – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Arrest and remand declared void due to non-compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards [Paras 21–22].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Transferee Pendente Lite – Not Maintainable – Petitioner purchased suit property during pendency of litigation – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – Executing court should have dismissed the application under Rule 97 CPC at the threshold in view of bar under Rule 102 CPC – Revisional court erred in dismissing the application outright rather than remanding the matter for preliminary determination of res judicata [Paras 22–30, 35–36].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability to Transferee During Suit – Rights Subordinate to Decree – Petitioner’s purchase in 2001 was during pendency of Original Suits No. 33/1991 and 151/1991 – Supreme Court precedents reaffirm that such transfers do not affect rights under decree – Transferee bound by outcome of litigation irrespective of notice – Held: Petitioner cannot resist execution of decree passed in 2003 [Paras 18–20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Revisional Court Cannot Assume Role of Executing Court – Revisional court should have remanded matter instead of rejecting the execution application – Observed: Supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly – Revisional court exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating on merits where trial court had not decided the matter finally [Paras 31–34].

Execution Delay – Directions for Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Mandate for Timely Execution – Relying on Periyammal (2025) and Rahul S. Shah (2021), Court reminded executing courts to dispose of execution proceedings within six months – Expressed concern over 10-year pendency of application filed in 2014 – Direction issued to dispose matter within one month [Paras 30, 36–37].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Matter Remanded to Executing Court – High Court set aside both revisional and trial court orders – Directed executing court to decide application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC afresh in light of law on lis pendens and Order XXI Rule 102 CPC within one month [Para 37].