Bar on Divorce Petition Presentation within One Year of Marriage – Section 14, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal allowed - The appellant argued that the divorce petition filed by the respondent was statutorily barred since it was presented within one year of marriage without seeking requisite court permission – Held: As per Section 14(1), a petition for divorce is barred within one year of marriage unless exceptional hardship or depravity is shown by application to the court, which was absent here – The bar is based on the date of petition presentation, not subsequent procedural actions – Accordingly, the lower court’s failure to address this statutory bar rendered the divorce proceedings procedurally flawed [Paras 12, 13].

Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce – Burden of Proof and Relevance of Conduct during Litigation – Section 13(1-A)(ii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal allowed - The court below erred in basing findings of cruelty on the appellant’s conduct during litigation rather than on specific incidents of cruelty during the marriage – Judicial scrutiny should be limited to behavior within the marital relationship – Mere litigious resistance by the appellant to divorce proceedings cannot constitute cruelty – Held: No evidence of cruelty in marriage justified a decree of divorce; therefore, the court’s findings were unsustainable [Paras 16-17].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Not a Statutory Ground for Divorce – Scope of Relief under Hindu Marriage Act – Appeal allowed - The lower court’s reliance on irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a factor in granting divorce was erroneous, as such a ground is absent under the statutory framework of the HMA – Appeals are confined to statutory grounds, and courts lack authority to dissolve marriage solely based on breakdown without legislative provision – Finding of irretrievable breakdown was held irrelevant and set aside [Paras 18-19].

Costs and Refund Order – Cost Awarded to Appellant – The court awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant, payable from the deposit made by the respondent in the court below – Remaining amount to be refunded to the respondent after satisfying any outstanding maintenance dues to the appellant [Para 22].

Civil Procedure – Recall of Witness – Exercise of Discretion Under Order XVIII Rule 17 – Writ Petition Allowed - The petitioner sought to recall DW.1 for cross-examination, contending that a crucial issue concerning the division of suit property required further examination of the witness – Held: Though the trial court initially denied the petitioner’s request, citing previous missed opportunities, the High Court recognized the relevance of the issue and allowed a final opportunity for cross-examination upon payment of exemplary costs. Emphasis was placed on avoiding undue delay and ensuring fairness in litigation [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Discretion – Importance of Final Opportunity Subject to Conditions – Cost Imposed to Prevent Frivolous Delay - Noting the petitioner’s repeated delays, the Court mandated a cost of Rs.10,000 as a deterrent, specifying that failure to cross-examine on the next date would result in a summary decision on the issue – This approach balances judicial efficiency with fairness, ensuring the plaintiff's opportunity without indefinite prolongation of proceedings [Para 10].

Decision - The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the trial court’s order and permitting the plaintiff a last opportunity to cross-examine DW.1, contingent on a Rs.10,000 payment to the respondents [Para 11].
 

Divorce – Mental Disorder – Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act – Claim for Divorce Rejected – Appeal Allowed – The appellant-husband sought divorce on the ground that the respondent-wife suffered from schizophrenia, rendering her unsuitable for marital life – Held: Evidence failed to prove that the alleged mental disorder was of such a nature and degree as to justify the dissolution of marriage – Mere existence of a disorder does not suffice unless it is shown to gravely impair marital life – Family Court’s findings upheld on this ground [Paras 33-45].

Cruelty – Continuous Separation – Long Period of Separation Amounts to Cruelty – Divorce Granted – Parties lived separately for over a decade, with no attempts to reconcile – Held: Continuous separation causes mental cruelty; refusal to cohabit or oppose divorce without plausible reason constitutes cruelty – Family Court erred in ignoring evidence of separation and its implications [Paras 20-31, 46-50].

Desertion – Willful Abandonment – Divorce Upheld – The respondent-wife’s prolonged absence from the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and failure to contest the appeal demonstrated animus deserendi – Held: These actions amounted to desertion as defined under Section 13 of the Act – Family Court’s findings reversed [Paras 26-32, 48].

Decision: The judgment and decree dated 29/04/2023 passed by the Family Court dismissing the appellant’s divorce suit were set aside. The marriage between the parties was dissolved on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Administrative Law – Premature Transfer – Transfer Guidelines Violated – Writ Petition Allowed - The petitioner contested his premature transfer, citing non-compliance with the Transfer Guidelines, which require minimum tenure in a post and approval for premature displacement – Held: The High Court found that the petitioner was prematurely removed without necessary approvals, in violation of both Transfer Guidelines and precedent. The Court granted relief, emphasizing that premature transfer disrupts administrative stability and is unsustainable absent compelling public interest [Paras 4-7, 12].

Interpretation of Transfer Guidelines – Distinction Between Transfer and Deployment - The Court clarified that “transfer” involves movement between different headquarters, while “deployment” refers to intra-headquarters changes. The petitioner’s reassignment qualified as a transfer rather than deployment, necessitating adherence to tenure and approval requirements, which were overlooked – Noted: The Tribunal’s order disregarded the intended interpretation of “transfer” in light of recent judicial precedent, further justifying the petition's success [Paras 8-11].

Decision - The writ petition was allowed, the Service Tribunal’s order quashed, and the petitioner reinstated to his original position as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District [Para 13].
 

Environmental Law – Suo Motu - Public Trust Doctrine - Environmental Conservation - Rivers and Water Bodies as Public Resources – The Court underscored the doctrine of public trust, emphasizing that natural resources like rivers, lakes, and water bodies are held by the State in trusteeship for public use. It directed the State to prevent private encroachment and protect these resources as part of its duty under Article 21. Citing M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Court highlighted that the government must manage natural resources to ensure their availability for the welfare of the public and the environment [Paras 13, 14].

Protection of Rivers and Water Bodies - Duty of State Authorities - Immediate Action Required – The Court ordered the formation of State, divisional, and district-level committees to monitor encroachment, mandate the removal of illegal constructions on riverbeds, and implement water conservation schemes. Recognizing the threats posed by unchecked encroachment, it emphasized the urgent need for regulatory vigilance and statutory compliance by authorities responsible for environmental protection [Paras 15, 31].

Legal Obligations under Environmental Legislation - Enforcement of Conservation Zones – The Court noted that the River Conservation Zone Regulations of 2015 and other statutory protections remain largely unimplemented. It directed the respondents to enact these regulations effectively, enabling satellite and drone surveillance to detect and prevent encroachment on rivers and water bodies, pursuant to Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment Protection Act [Paras 20, 21, 29].

Directions to Authorities - Establishment of Monitoring and Complaint Mechanisms – To bolster accountability, the Court directed that an online platform be set up for public awareness on the complaint process, with a toll-free number for reporting encroachments. A monitoring system using satellite and drone technologies was mandated to prevent future unauthorized constructions and monitor existing encroachments [Paras 31(VII), 31(VIII)].

Decision – Suo Motu Petition Registered and Directions Issued – The Court issued show-cause notices to the Union and State Governments, requiring reports on measures taken to prevent encroachments and protect rivers and water bodies. The petition was listed for further hearing, with directives for a comprehensive report on compliance with environmental laws and initiatives for water conservation [Paras 32, 34].
 

Tenancy Law - Eviction on Grounds of Unauthorized Construction – Permanent Structure Requirement – Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act – Eviction Order Restored - The plaintiff sought eviction based on unauthorized constructions by the tenant, including a toilet, storeroom, and shed, allegedly made without landlord consent. The trial court decreed eviction, but the appellate court reversed, finding insufficient pleadings on alterations. Held: Tenant’s constructions constituted permanent structures under Section 13(1)(b), justifying eviction. The appellate court's findings were perverse, given clear evidence of alterations and tenant's admissions. Writ Petition allowed, reinstating the eviction decree by the Small Causes Court [Paras 3, 16-18, 22, 23, 27].

Interpretation of Rent Agreement – Scope of Permissible Alterations - Defendant claimed the Rent Agreement allowed renovations; however, structures added were temporary. Held: The Rent Agreement permitted only renovations, not construction of a toilet block, storeroom, or shed covering open space. The additions were clearly permanent modifications to the premises. [Paras 12-15, 22].

Use of Court Commissioner’s Report as Evidence - Tenant disputed the validity of the Court Commissioner’s findings, arguing the structures pre-existed the lease. Held: The Court Commissioner’s report confirmed unauthorized structures, and the tenant’s admissions invalidated his defense. The appellate court erred in disregarding this report, which corroborated the plaintiff’s claims of unauthorized additions. [Paras 15-16, 24].

Applicability of High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution - Respondent argued the appellate court’s findings should not be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 absent clear perversity. Held: The appellate court’s reversal was perverse, failing to consider vital evidence, including the Court Commissioner’s report and tenant’s admissions. Intervention under Article 227 was justified to correct a miscarriage of justice. [Paras 7, 26].

Remand of Proceedings – Judicial Economy Considerations - The respondent requested a remand due to limited reasoning in the eviction decree. Held: Due to the case’s lengthy duration and clear evidence of unauthorized construction, remand would serve no purpose. The High Court opted to resolve the matter substantively to avoid prolonging litigation. [Paras 27, 28].

Decision – Writ Petition allowed – Judgment and decree dated 16 February 1999 by the District Court set aside – Eviction decree dated 30 March 1996 restored – Defendant to vacate premises by 31 December 2024 [Para 28].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction - Acquittal –Anti-Timed First Information Report (FIR) – Credibility of Prosecution Case – Benefit of Doubt – The prosecution claimed that the FIR was lodged promptly after the murder, yet testimonies indicated it may have been lodged after the body was taken to the police station and post-mortem conducted – The absence of an FIR reference in the post-mortem report, and witness statements suggesting signing on blank papers, cast doubt on the authenticity of the FIR – Held: The delayed FIR raises suspicion of afterthought and embellishment, weakening the prosecution’s case [Paras 26-27, 29-30].

Inconsistent Testimony of Key Witnesses – Material Contradictions – Witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) provided conflicting accounts of critical events, including the timing of police notification, conduct of the inquest, and identification of the assailants, suggesting unreliability in their presence and credibility – Held: Testimonies riddled with contradictions cannot be relied upon to convict, particularly in the absence of corroborative evidence [Paras 16-18, 34].

Defective Investigation – Procedural Lapses and Missing Evidence – The Investigating Officer failed to collect crucial evidence, such as blood-stained clothes of witnesses and samples from the scene, and did not record independent witness statements – Held: Procedural lapses compounded doubts over the prosecution’s narrative, underscoring the need for benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 36-38].

Motive and Enmity – Double-Edged Weapon – The prosecution cited previous enmity as a motive for the crime; however, the Supreme Court has held that enmity can be a double-edged weapon, suggesting both motive and potential for false implication – Held: Motive alone, without reliable evidence, is insufficient for conviction [Paras 43-44].

Failure to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Acquittal – The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies, defective investigation, and lack of corroborative evidence – Held: Convictions were unsafe and liable to be set aside – Appeals allowed, and appellants acquitted [Paras 45-47].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the trial court’s judgment. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless wanted in other cases, subject to compliance with procedural requirements.

Service Law - Confidential Reports (CRs) – Standard for Judicial Review – Assessment Validity – The petitioner, an Army Brigadier, challenged adverse CRs that impacted his nomination for the National Defence College (NDC) and promotion to Major General – Held: Judicial review of CRs is permissible where objectivity or procedural fairness is compromised; the Tribunal's findings that assessments were consistent lacked scrutiny regarding evident subjectivity and procedural anomalies in the petitioner’s CRs [Paras 18-20, 34-40].

Confidential Reports – Expunction of Adverse Ratings – Objectivity and Consistency Standards – The petitioner alleged unjust downgrading in CRs from April–August 2009, July 2018–June 2019, and July 2020–February 2021 – Held: The expunction was warranted as the assessments by the Reviewing Officer (RO) in July 2018–June 2019 lacked correlation with recorded achievements, failing objective and consistent assessment standards; similarly, the expunction of the Initiating Officer's (IO) assessment in July 2020–February 2021 was arbitrary given alignment with prior positive assessments [Paras 41-45, 50-59].

Promotion and Nomination Eligibility – Impact of Confidential Report Assessments – Fair Consideration Ordered – Given that expunged adverse CRs had affected the petitioner’s ranking and eligibility for the NDC course and promotion, the Court directed reconsideration of his eligibility for these opportunities based on modified CRs [Paras 59-60].

Decision: The petition is partly allowed, expunging the adverse assessments in CRs for July 2018–June 2019 and July 2020–February 2021, and directing reconsideration of the petitioner’s eligibility for NDC and promotion to Major General.
 

Taxation Law – Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration – Validity of Show Cause Notice – The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his GST registration, arguing that it was cancelled with retrospective effect without valid reasons or proper notice – The court found that the Show Cause Notice issued on 06.02.2024 lacked essential details, such as the officer's name and the location of the hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice – The court emphasized that at least three opportunities for a personal hearing must be provided as per the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017, which was not adhered to in this case – Held: The cancellation order dated 25.05.2024 is unsustainable due to non-compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 6-10].

Non-Existence of the Taxpayer – Temporary Suspension of Business – The petitioner’s business was alleged to be non-existent at the registered address, leading to cancellation – The petitioner explained that the business was temporarily closed due to health issues and travel, which did not warrant cancellation – Held: Temporary absence from the place of business does not justify the conclusion that the entity was non-existent – Cancellation order and subsequent rejection of revocation application are quashed [Paras 17-18].

Demand for Outstanding Penalty – Rejection of Revocation Application – The respondents rejected the petitioner’s application for revocation on the grounds of non-payment of a penalty of Rs. 24,38,232/- – The court found that the penalty demand, raised in a separate proceeding, was still pending adjudication and could not be used as a ground for rejecting the revocation application – The court held that penalty proceedings are independent of the cancellation of GST registration, and any dues can be recovered without linking them to the status of registration [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Both the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 06.02.2024 and 07.08.2024, as well as the cancellation orders dated 25.05.2024 and 27.08.2024, are quashed – The petitioner’s GST registration is directed to be restored – Respondents are, however, free to initiate fresh proceedings for tax recovery, if necessary, in accordance with the law [Paras 18-19].