Criminal Law - Maintenance - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 144 - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner sought quashing of maintenance application alleging the respondent provided inconsistent and contradictory information across multiple litigations regarding the date and location of their alleged marriage - High Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the existence of a marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Section 528 BNSS - Determination of such facts requires evidence to be led during trial where both parties have the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut claims - Held - High Court refused to exercise inherent powers to quash the maintenance petition - [Paras 1-17].

Family Law - Maintenance - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 144 - Relationship in nature of marriage - Respondent initiated maintenance proceedings asserting status as wife - Petitioner disputed the marriage citing prior acquittals and inconsistent pleadings by the respondent - Relying on Supreme Court precedent the High Court noted that even if a formal marriage is contested a relationship in the nature of marriage can be established through evidence at trial - Burden of proof and rebuttal of presumption of marriage are matters for the trial court - Held - petition dismissed - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed - The maintenance proceedings before the Family Court shall continue in accordance with law.

Criminal Law - Murder and Disappearance of Evidence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 201 and 34 - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Missing Links in Chain of Circumstances - Appellants convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court for murder of victim whose beheaded body was discovered in a septic tank of a marriage hall - Victim allegedly called from his house on 27 January 2011 to play carrom and dead body recovered in wee hours of 30 January 2011 - Missing diary lodged by victim father on 29 January 2011 completely omitted mention of victim leaving with appellants or any suspicion against them - Written complaint filed after unexplained delay of three days - Autopsy surgeon opined death occurred 24 to 36 hours prior to post mortem examination conducted on 31 January 2011 - Substantial time gap of over 72 hours between last seen and discovery of body - Possibility of false implication due to local political rivalry not ruled out - High Court set aside conviction and order of sentence - Held - Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to guilt of appellants - conviction set aside and appellants acquitted - [Paras 1-72].

Evidence Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - Last Seen Together - Proximity of time and place - Applicability of reverse burden - Prosecution contended that victim was last seen entering marriage hall with appellants and failure to explain circumstances attracted Section 106 - Autopsy report established time of death inconsistent with immediate killing upon parting - Time gap between last seen alive on 27 January 2011 and recovery of corpse on 30 January 2011 was over 72 hours - Held - Time gap cannot be termed proximate to invoke last seen doctrine or shift burden onto accused under Section 106 of Evidence Act - [Paras 49-60 65].

Evidence Law - Information Leading to Discovery - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161 - Recovery of weapons of offence - Police seized bhojali hansua and nepala allegedly pursuant to statements made by appellants - Relevant disclosure statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC leading to recovery not proved at trial - Weapons not shown to autopsy surgeon during deposition - Serological report inconclusive regarding origin and group of blood on seized weapons - Held - Prosecution failed to prove that recovered weapons were actually used in committing murder - recovery under Section 27 cannot form basis of conviction - [Paras 66-68].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges and directed to be set at liberty forthwith subject to bail bonds under Section 437A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS.

Civil Law - Commercial Dispute - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Pre-litigation Mediation - Mandatory Requirement - Urgent Interim Relief Exception - Rejection of Plaint - Plaintiff National Stock Exchange instituted commercial suit for recovery of Rs 339.57 crores on behalf of 5393 investors against expelled trading member and its directors alleging misappropriation of client securities and funds - High Court previously granted ad-interim reliefs directing disclosure on oath of assets and restraining defendants from transferring or dealing with assets - Defendant Nos 1 to 3 filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint for non-compliance with mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Contended that SEBI had already passed restraining orders and plaintiff delayed filing suit after cause of action arose - High Court observed that Section 12A is mandatory but expressly excludes suits contemplating urgent interim relief - Once ad-interim or interim relief is granted by the Court considering urgency it must be presumed that suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief - Order VII Rule 11 cannot be used to sit in appeal over findings of urgency in ad-interim order - Conduct of defendants in providing limited asset disclosures necessitated urgent judicial intervention - Held - Suit falls squarely within exception under Section 12A(1) - Interim Application for rejection of plaint dismissed - [Paras 1-31].

Civil Law - Commercial Courts - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Scope and Principles of Urgent Interim Relief - Test of contemplation - Examination of plaint and cause of action - Held - Test for urgent interim relief is examined holistically from standpoint of plaintiff based on subject matter and cause of action - Contemplation does not mean instant immediacy but prejudice and irreparable loss likely suffered if made to wait for pre-litigation mediation - Even where urgent interim relief is ultimately denied suit can proceed if test of contemplation is satisfied - Where ad-interim or interim injunction is granted Court will readily presume contemplation of urgent interim relief in the suit - Merits of underlying dispute are irrelevant at stage of deciding rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - [Paras 13-18, 25-26].

Civil Law - Fraud and Abuse of Process - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Applicability where regulatory findings of fraud exist - Pre-litigation mediation as shield - Held - Unconscionable for defaulting trading member and directors against whom final regulatory findings of fraud and misappropriation have been recorded by SEBI to use Section 12A as a shield to resist suit or seek rejection of plaint filed by Stock Exchange to protect investor interests - [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Interim Application rejected – Plaint not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Costs of the application shall be costs in the suit.

Contempt Law - Civil Contempt - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(b) - Execution of Decree vs Contempt Jurisdiction - Petitioners obtained a decree of declaration and permanent injunction in civil suit on 01.08.1986 which attained finality after dismissal of first appeal and dismissal of regular second appeal for want of prosecution - Petitioners initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance of decree without filing any execution petition under CPC - High Court observed that contempt jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be converted into an alternative mode or shortcut for executing civil decrees - Petition failed to demonstrate any specific subsequent act of deliberate and wilful violation - Held - Where grievance essentially concerns enforcement of an executable civil decree and decree-holder has effective statutory remedy of execution the Court should ordinarily decline contempt jurisdiction unless specific wilful disobedience is shown - Petition disposed of with liberty to seek execution - [Paras 1-15].

Civil Law - Enforcement of Injunction Decree - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI Rule 32 - Execution versus Contempt - Order XXI Rule 32 CPC provides complete statutory machinery for enforcing decrees of injunction through attachment of property and civil imprisonment - Distinction between execution proceedings enforcing terms of decree and contempt proceedings adjudicating wilful disobedience - Availability of execution does not bar contempt jurisdiction in law but weapon of contempt cannot be misused as a parallel execution forum - Held - Contempt court will not entertain petition solely for enforcing an executable decree in absence of exceptional circumstances or distinct acts of intentional disobedience - [Paras 4-14].

Decision: Contempt petition disposed of – Liberty granted to the petitioners to avail the remedy of execution before the competent Court in accordance with law.

Writ Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioner union office-bearer subjected to repeated disciplinary proceedings since 2017 resulting in successive major penalty orders of pay reduction - Conciliation applications alleging unfair labour practice pending undecided before Regional Labour Commissioner for over four years - Section 2A ID Act inapplicable as petitioner was not dismissed discharged or retrenched - Central Government Industrial Tribunal Kolkata lacking a full-time Presiding Officer - Respondent employer raised preliminary objection that writ petition was not maintainable due to statutory remedy under the ID Act - Held - Availability of alternative remedy is a self-imposed limitation and not an absolute bar to plenary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - Where tribunal is non-functional and conciliation proceedings remain indefinitely pending leaving petitioner remediless against arbitrary and unreasonable actions of a State instrumentality the writ petition is maintainable and will be heard on merits - [Paras 1-19].

Labour and Service Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Domestic Enquiry - Principles of Natural Justice - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33 and Fifth Schedule - Departmental enquiry conducted on charges arising from sole complainant without independent witnesses - Enquiry Officer restricted defence witnesses to four against submitted list of ten witnesses - Imposition of major penalty orders during pendency of conciliation proceedings - Back-to-back disciplinary actions over ten years against union office-bearer - Held - Cumulative facts and record prima facie demonstrate arbitrary and unreasonable action constituting unfair labour practice - Writ petition maintainable to prevent gross injustice - [Paras 11-17].

Decision: Preliminary objection regarding maintainability rejected – Writ petition held maintainable to be heard on merits – Matter listed for final hearing on 28th August 2026 with directions to parties to file written notes.

Civil Law - Striking out pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 16 and Section 151 - Scope of amended written statement - Plaintiff filed partition suit - Petitioner-defendant asserted prior partition under written agreement - Plaintiff amended plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to include other properties - Petitioner filed fresh amended written statement omitting earlier preliminary objections and introducing plea of limitation - Plaintiff filed replication and issues were framed - Plaintiff then moved application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC to strike off amended written statement alleging substitution of entire defence - Trial Court struck off the written statement - High Court set aside the Trial Court order holding that power to strike out pleadings must be exercised sparingly and only upon satisfaction of specific statutory grounds under clauses (a) (b) or (c) of Order VI Rule 16 - Inconsistency with earlier pleadings or introduction of limitation plea does not justify striking out the entire written statement - Held - Impugned order striking off written statement set aside - Written statement dated 01.12.2017 restored on record - Petition allowed - [Paras 1-21].

Civil Law - Amendment of pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rules 16 and 17 - Right and latitude of defendant to file amended written statement - Distinction between amended plaint and amended written statement - Defendant enjoys greater latitude in altering or adding to defence than plaintiff amending a plaint - Written statement filed in response to amended plaint is not confined strictly to the amended portions of the plaint - Held - Defendant can take a different or inconsistent defence in amended written statement - Evidentiary value or legal effect of altered stand or withdrawal of admission is a matter to be adjudicated during trial and does not attract Order VI Rule 16 CPC - [Paras 8-15].

Civil Law - Limitation - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 16 - Introduction of plea of limitation in subsequent written statement - Held - Plea of limitation relates to maintainability of the claim - Mere omission of limitation plea in earlier written statement does not bar its inclusion in amended written statement nor does it render the pleading scandalous frivolous vexatious or an abuse of process - [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 06.08.2019 set aside – Written statement dated 01.12.2017 ordered to be treated as written statement of defendant No. 1 – Trial Court directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

Preventive Detention Law - Preventive Detention under PITNDPS Act - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 - Section 3(1) - Quashing of detention order - Petitioner arrested in November 2022 in NCB Crime No 79/2022 and subsequently granted regular bail by Supreme Court on 24.11.2025 - Sponsoring authority forwarded proposal and Joint Secretary passed detention order dated 27.11.2025 after nearly three years from alleged offences - Order executed on 07.01.2026 after unexplained delay of 41 days and confirmed by Central Government on 24.03.2026 - Petitioner challenged detention order under Article 226 - High Court allowed writ petition - Held - unexplained delay of nearly three years in passing detention order and 41 days in execution snapped the live and proximate link between past alleged activities and necessity for preventive detention - passing detention order three days after Supreme Court granted regular bail without seeking cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal procedure amounted to circumvention of ordinary law - impugned detention order and confirmation order quashed - [Paras 1-19].

Preventive Detention Law - Live and Proximate Link - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Test of proximity - Material relied upon pertained to crime registered in November 2022 whereas detention order was passed in November 2025 - Stale and remote incidents - Held - past conduct alone cannot justify preventive detention unless there exists a live and proximate link between alleged past activity and apprehension of future prejudicial conduct - long and unexplained delay between alleged prejudicial activities and passing of detention order snaps causal connection - [Paras 13-16].

Preventive Detention Law - Execution Delay - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 - Section 3(1) - Unexplained delay of 41 days in execution - Detention order passed on 27.11.2025 but executed on 07.01.2026 - Petitioner was already granted bail and was not absconding - Authorities failed to place on record steps taken during the interim period - Held - unexplained or inadequately explained delay in executing detention order vitiates subjective satisfaction of detaining authority and casts serious doubt on genuineness of immediate necessity for preventive detention - [Paras 5-17].

Preventive Detention Law - Circumvention of Bail Order - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 - Section 3(1) - Interplay between ordinary criminal law and preventive detention - Petitioner granted regular bail by Supreme Court on 24.11.2025 and detention order passed three days later - No application filed by State for cancellation of bail - Held - preventive detention is an extraordinary measure and cannot be invoked merely to circumvent ordinary criminal process or nullify a bail order passed by a competent court - apprehension of future involvement ought to be addressed through cancellation of bail under ordinary criminal law - [Paras 6-18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Detention order dated 27.11.2025 and confirmation order dated 24.03.2026 quashed – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Civil Law - Limitation - Tort and Compensation - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 72 and Section 5 - Suit for damages and compensation for physical injuries and mental torture - Incident occurred on 12.11.2009 wherein defendants assaulted plaintiff causing knee injuries leading to criminal conviction under Sections 325 323 34 IPC - Plaintiff instituted civil suit for compensation on 01.11.2015 after expiry of nearly six years - Trial Court dismissed suit as barred by limitation - First Appellate Court affirmed dismissal holding that suit for tortious compensation is governed by Article 72 prescribing one year limitation and delay in filing suit cannot be condoned under Section 5 - Regular second appeal filed before High Court - Held - suit for compensation regarding injuries is governed by Article 72 requiring institution within one year from the date of occurrence - suit filed beyond prescribed limitation period is hopelessly time-barred - concurrent findings of courts below affirmed - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-15].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 72 and Section 5 - Non-applicability of Section 5 to suits - Suit for recovery of compensation in respect of injuries suffered on account of tortious act must be filed within one year from the date when the act takes place - Cause of action accrued on 12.11.2009 and suit instituted on 01.11.2015 - Delay in instituting a suit cannot be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act - Held - suit instituted after expiry of one year is barred by limitation - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Regular second appeal dismissed – Application for condonation of delay in re-filing disposed of – Concurrent judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the suit as time-barred affirmed.