Civil Law – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 CPC – Refusal to Appoint Commissioner – Revisability – Petition filed under Article 227 challenging order of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner – Held: Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of parties and therefore is not revisable – Appointment of Local Commissioner is purely discretionary and no vested right accrues to any party [Paras 1–3].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Limited Scope – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to circumvent settled law on maintainability of revisions – Reliance placed on binding Division Bench judgment holding such orders as non-revisable – No illegality or perversity found in impugned order [Paras 2–3].

Withdrawal of Revision Petition – Liberty to Lead Evidence – Petitioner sought permission to withdraw revision in view of settled legal position and availability of opportunity to lead evidence at appropriate stage – Revision dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to adduce relevant evidence during trial [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed as withdrawn – Liberty granted to petitioner to lead relevant evidence before Trial Court.

Civil Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application seeking rejection of plaint on ground that suit for administration of estate is barred in law as plaintiff had propounded a Will and probate proceedings were pending – Held: Plaint cannot be rejected where it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law – Order VII Rule 11 invoked erroneously [Paras 57–58, 70–71, 76].

Administration of Estate – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Distinction from Probate Proceedings – Plaintiff propounded Will of 1994 and filed probate petition as executor – Defendant contended civil court lacked jurisdiction till probate decided – Held: Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction only to decide genuineness and execution of Will – Administration of estate and protective reliefs fall within civil court’s jurisdiction – Remedies are distinct and can proceed concurrently [Paras 59–62, 73, 77].

Pending Probate – Maintainability of Administration Suit – Mere pendency of testamentary proceedings does not bar institution or continuation of suit for administration of estate – Grant of probate may follow suit but must precede final decree – Section 213 of Succession Act not a bar to institution of civil action [Paras 63–64].

Executor – Section 211 Succession Act – Legal Representative – Executor becomes legal representative of deceased upon death – Vesting of estate enables prosecution of civil proceedings without waiting for probate – Rights subject to outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 63, 45].

Two Competing Wills – Civil Court’s Limited Role – Plaintiff acknowledged later Will of 2012 propounded by defendant – Held: Civil court need not and cannot decide which Will is genuine – Testamentary court alone to adjudicate validity – Civil court confined to administration and protection of estate [Paras 62, 73–74].

Alternative Pleas – Will and Intestacy – Permissibility – Plaintiff sought administration as per Will and alternatively on intestacy – Objection that pleas were mutually destructive rejected – Held: Alternative pleas permissible where factual foundation not inconsistent – Alternate relief would arise only if both Wills held invalid [Paras 65–67].

Contradictory vs Alternative Pleas – Test Applied – Pleas not self-destructive as they operate on different eventualities – Reliance on Praful Manohar Rele and Sarva Shramik Sangh affirmed – No bar to claiming alternate reliefs on same factual matrix [Paras 65–67].

Rejection of Plaint in Parts – Impermissible – Defendant sought rejection of prayers (a) to (c) alone – Held: Plaint must be read as whole – Partial rejection not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 70].

Concurrent Proceedings – Civil and Testamentary Courts – Suit for administration and probate proceedings may proceed simultaneously – Final decree in administration suit to await outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 77].

Decision – Notice of Motion seeking rejection of plaint dismissed – Suit held maintainable – Four weeks’ stay granted on operation of order [Paras 78–80].

Criminal Law – Section 482 – Inherent Powers – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Scope – FIR registered under Section 188 IPC read with Section 14(i) of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Held: High Court can quash FIR even after filing of charge-sheet if continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court [Paras 12–18, 26].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 188 – Cognizance – Bar under Section 195 CrPC – Mandatory Compliance – FIR lodged by public servant before police instead of written complaint to Magistrate – Police registered case and filed charge-sheet – Held: Prosecution for offence under Section 188 IPC can be initiated only on complaint in writing of public servant before Magistrate – FIR and charge-sheet to that extent void ab initio – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 29–32].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195 – Nature and Effect – Object – Protection against frivolous prosecution – Held: Any violation of mandatory procedure under Section 195 CrPC vitiates entire proceedings relating to offence under Sections 172 to 188 IPC – Cognizance taken contrary to statute unsustainable in law [Paras 30–31].

Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 – Section 14(i) – Penal Consequences – Cognizable Offence – Section 15 – Applicability of CrPC – FIR Maintainable – Held: Act provides both civil and penal consequences – Section 14 creates offence of unauthorized occupation – Section 15 expressly applies CrPC treating offence as cognizable – No statutory bar against lodging FIR for offence under Section 14 – Criminal proceedings to that extent valid [Paras 33–37].

Public Premises – Unauthorized Occupation – Eviction Proceedings and Criminal Liability – Distinction – Held: Civil remedies such as eviction, demolition and appeal under the Act are independent of penal prosecution under Section 14 – Availability of civil remedies does not bar criminal action where statute so permits [Paras 33–35].

Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Power – Partial Quashing – Severability – Held: Where FIR discloses multiple offences and statutory bar applies only to one, proceedings can be quashed partially – FIR and charge-sheet quashed only to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC while allowed to continue for offence under Section 14 of 2003 Act [Paras 38–39].

Decision: Criminal petition partly allowed – FIR dated 14.08.2019 and Charge-sheet No. 02/2020 quashed to extent of offence under Section 188 IPC – Criminal proceedings under Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law – Petition disposed of [Paras 38–40].

Arbitration Award – Execution – Jurisdiction of Seat Court – Objection raised that executing court lacks territorial jurisdiction as judgment debtor’s assets situated outside Mumbai – Held: Seat Court under Section 2(1)(e) of Arbitration Act retains jurisdiction to entertain execution and grant interim reliefs in aid of execution – Award creditor has option to execute either before seat court or court where assets are located – Sundaram Finance and Gemini Bay confer additional choice and do not divest seat court of jurisdiction [Paras 62–69].

Execution Proceedings – Sections 38 & 39 CPC – No Ouster of Seat Court – Argument that award becomes decree under CPC and execution governed solely by Sections 38 and 39 CPC rejected – Held: CPC provisions operate in addition to and not in derogation of jurisdiction of seat court – Transfer of decree is optional, not mandatory [Paras 63–67].

Post-Award Reliefs – Disclosure and Injunction as Matter of Course – In post-award scenario, interim reliefs such as disclosure of assets and restraint against alienation are necessary to prevent frustration of decree – Execution court empowered to secure decretal amount to ensure award creditor is not left with paper decree [Paras 68–69, 92].

Hindu Undivided Family – Karta’s Liability – Personal and Unlimited – Decree passed against HUF sought to be executed against Karta’s personal assets – Held: Karta has personal and unlimited liability for unsatisfied debts of HUF – Liability flows from special status of Karta under Hindu law and does not require separate personal decree – Distinction between Karta and ordinary coparceners reiterated [Paras 71–76, 83–85].

Trading HUF – Execution against Karta – Respondent HUF admittedly carrying on construction business – Held: Even otherwise, where HUF carries on business, Karta’s personal liability is well recognised – Attempt to distinguish “HUF firm” rejected as misconceived [Paras 71, 77–79].

Res Judicata – Inapplicability at Execution Stage – Contention that arbitral tribunal did not pass money award against Karta and hence execution barred by res judicata rejected – Held: Issue of Karta’s personal liability arises only at execution stage by operation of Hindu law and could not have been adjudicated in arbitration [Paras 74, 86].

Executing Court – Cannot Go Behind Decree – But Can Determine Mode of Satisfaction – While executing court cannot vary decree, it can decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction under Section 47 CPC – Determination of Karta’s liability is permissible as it concerns satisfaction of decree [Paras 87–88].

Court Receiver – Custodia Legis – Sale of Secured Properties – Title deeds deposited pursuant to Section 17 order constitute security lying custodia legis – Held: Court empowered under Section 51(d) CPC to appoint Court Receiver – Receiver appointed with powers to take possession and sell properties to satisfy award [Paras 90–91].

Disclosure of Assets – Injunction against Alienation – Respondents directed to file comprehensive affidavits disclosing movable and immovable assets, income tax returns and bank statements – Injunction granted restraining respondents from dealing with or alienating assets pending execution [Paras 92–95].

Decision – Interim Application allowed – Jurisdictional objections rejected – Court Receiver appointed – Disclosure and injunction granted – Prayer for further coercive steps kept open – Stay refused [Paras 89–98].

Service Law – Fixed Pay Policy – Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Appellants appointed through regular selection process against sanctioned permanent posts of Graduate Teachers and Post Graduate Teachers – State policy restricted payment to 75% fixed pay for first five years – Held: Once appointed against regular posts after due selection, denial of regular pay scale amounts to irrational classification – Violates Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 28–34].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Scope – Applicability to Regular Appointees – Appellants discharged same duties, responsibilities, workload and sensitivity as teachers appointed prior to 2001 and those appointed through Tripura Public Service Commission – No distinguishing features shown by State – Held: Unequal pay for identical work impermissible – Doctrine squarely attracted [Paras 31–35].

Executive Policy – Memorandums of 2001 and 2007 – Constitutional Validity – Memorandum dated 15.12.2001 and 16.10.2007 introduced and continued fixed pay regime for Group C and D employees – Held: Policy of keeping regular pay scales in abeyance for sanctioned posts arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional – Cabinet approval does not grant immunity from judicial review [Paras 42, 45–51].

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Limits – Courts normally refrain from interfering in policy matters – However, when policy violates fundamental rights or is arbitrary, courts are duty-bound to strike it down – Held: Fixed pay policy infringes Article 14 and hence liable to be invalidated [Paras 44–50].

Financial Stringency – Pleadings – Burden of Proof – Single Judge relied on alleged financial constraints of State – No pleading or material produced by State to establish financial hardship – Held: In absence of pleadings and evidence, financial stringency cannot justify denial of constitutional rights [Paras 52–55].

Appointment Terms – Temporary Appointment against Permanent Posts – Estoppel – Appointment letters described posts as temporary with termination clause despite advertisement for permanent posts – Held: State estopped from altering nature of posts post-selection – Such clauses arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 55–59].

Waiver – Estoppel – Fundamental Rights – Acceptance of appointment on fixed pay does not bar employees from challenging unconstitutional conditions – There can be no estoppel against Constitution and no waiver of fundamental rights – Held: Appellants entitled to challenge fixed pay condition notwithstanding acceptance [Paras 56–60].

Relief – Monetary Benefits – Limitation – Appellants approached Court belatedly – Held: Regular pay granted notionally from date of initial appointment – Arrears restricted to three years prior to filing of writ petitions with 9% interest – Costs awarded [Paras 65–66].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Memorandums dated 15.12.2001 and 16.10.2007 struck down – Appellants deemed regular appointees from initial date – Regular pay scale granted with consequential benefits – Arrears limited to three years with interest @ 9% per annum – Costs awarded.

Civil Law – Framing of Issues – Will Propounded by Defendant – Mandatory Duty of Court – Plaintiff filed suit claiming ownership by natural inheritance – Defendants pleaded Will dated 16.08.1978 to defeat plaintiff’s claim – Trial Court framed general issue on entitlement to declaration but failed to frame specific issue on validity and effect of Will – Application by plaintiff for framing additional issue dismissed on ground that only defendants could seek such issue – Held: Plea of Will constitutes a distinct and material proposition of fact and law and Court is statutorily bound to frame a specific issue thereon [Paras 2, 5].

Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 CPC – Scope and Application – Issues are to be framed by Court on basis of pleadings and not at discretion of parties – Any party affected by a plea raised is entitled to seek framing of an issue – Court empowered to frame or amend issues at any stage before passing of decree if necessary for determining real controversy – Stage of rebuttal evidence no bar to framing additional issue [Paras 7].

Will – Proof – Burden of Proof – Procedural Safeguards – Proof of Will governed by special statutory requirements under Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act – Burden lies on propounder of Will – Absence of specific issue on Will renders trial procedurally deficient and final adjudication vulnerable to challenge – General issue cannot substitute a specific issue on Will [Paras 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – Trial Court declined to frame necessary issue on erroneous understanding of law – Such refusal amounts to material error of jurisdiction – Interference by High Court warranted to ensure proper adjudication of lis [Paras 8].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 26.11.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to frame additional issue regarding validity, execution and binding effect of Will dated 16.08.1978 and proceed with suit in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Income Tax – Criminal Prosecution – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Wilful Tax Evasion – Search and seizure conducted under Section 132 I.T. Act revealed substantial concealment of income – Petitioner filed revised returns under Section 153A declaring higher income – Complaints filed for offences under Sections 276C(1) and 277 I.T. Act after obtaining statutory sanction – Held: Allegations disclose wilful, deliberate and conscious tax evasion – No ground for quashing proceedings at threshold [Paras 1–4, 8].

Penalty Proceedings – Effect on Criminal Prosecution – Exoneration on Technical Grounds – Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) set aside by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to defective notices not specifying charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars – Exoneration not on merits but on technical grounds – Held: Setting aside of penalty on technical grounds does not bar continuation of criminal prosecution – Ratio of K.C. Builders not applicable [Paras 5–7].

Adjudication vs Prosecution – Distinction – Binding Precedent – Reliance placed on Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal – Supreme Court held that prosecution can continue where exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical grounds – Earlier decision in K.C. Builders explained and distinguished – Held: Criminal proceedings validly instituted and liable to proceed [Paras 6–7].

Amendment to Income Tax Act – Underreporting and Misreporting of Income – Contention that Sections 270A and amended Section 276C introduced only from 01.04.2017 – Offences alleged relate to earlier assessment years – Held: Complaints specifically allege tax evasion and wilful concealment – Amendment relating to underreporting/misreporting has no bearing on prosecution for tax evasion already covered under unamended Section 276C [Para 8].

Inherent Powers – Scope and Limitation – High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or assess sufficiency of evidence at Section 482 stage – When complaints disclose prima facie offences, interference is unwarranted – Held: No abuse of process of court made out [Paras 7–8].

Decision – All Criminal Miscellaneous Cases dismissed – Prosecution before Trial Court to continue in accordance with law.

Environmental Law – National Green Tribunal – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Alternative Remedy – Writ petition under Article 226 challenging NGT order keeping Environmental Clearance (EC) in abeyance – Existence of statutory appeal under Section 22 of NGT Act – Held: Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar – Writ petition maintainable and entertained where challenge is on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice and long pendency of proceedings [Paras 29, 85(A)].

National Green Tribunal – Jurisdiction – “Person Aggrieved” – Section 16 NGT Act – Appeal before NGT by private respondent challenging grant of EC – Contention that appellant before NGT lacked locus standi – Held: Appellant before NGT was a “person aggrieved” within meaning of Section 16 – NGT order not without jurisdiction [Paras 44–47, 85(B)].

Environmental Clearance – Mining Project – Power of NGT to Keep EC in Abeyance – NGT directing EC dated 16.04.2020 to be kept in abeyance and remitting matter for fresh consideration – Allegations of procedural violations, lack of detailed study and non-compliance with Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 – Held: NGT justified in exercising preventive and remedial jurisdiction – No perversity or illegality in keeping EC in abeyance pending reconsideration [Paras 56–58, 85(C)-(D)].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Remand by NGT – Petitioner contending that adverse grounds were not put to it – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice – Petitioner participated in proceedings and NGT passed reasoned order considering environmental concerns [Paras 49–50, 85(C)].

Environmental Jurisprudence – Suo Motu Powers of NGT – Sections 14 and 15 NGT Act – Held: NGT’s role not confined to adjudication of lis between parties – Tribunal empowered to take cognizance of environmental threats and violations even beyond grounds urged by parties [Paras 58–59].

Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Scope – Question of grant of EC, whether ex post facto or otherwise, left open – Authorities directed to reconsider EC in light of NGT directions and latest Supreme Court judgment in CREDAI v. Vanashakti – Held: Issue to be decided by competent authority in accordance with law [Paras 82–84].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order of NGT dated 15.11.2021 upheld – Respondent authorities directed to reconsider grant of Environmental Clearance in accordance with NGT directions and latest Supreme Court pronouncements – Opportunity of hearing to be afforded to petitioner and private respondent – No order as to costs.

Divorce – Appeal against Dismissal of Suit – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Appellate Court’s Duty – Trial Court failed to appreciate pleadings and evidence on record – Findings based on conjectures and improper appreciation of evidence – Judgment and decree set aside [Paras 10, 37–38, 95–96].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Abuse at Workplace – False Allegations on Chastity – Threats and Public Humiliation – Serious allegations pleaded and supported by evidence-in-chief – Evasive denials in written statement – Doctrine of Non-Traverse attracted – Allegations deemed admitted – Cruelty established on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 34–36, 44, 53, 56].

Cruelty – Procedural Fairness – Denial of Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Refusal to allow video-conferencing of witnesses on ground of lack of infrastructure – Trial Court itself prevented production of best evidence – Adverse inference against wife impermissible – Refusal held unsustainable [Paras 14, 36–38, 52–53].

Desertion – Living Separately since 2015 – Stray Visits not Amounting to Cohabitation – Husband failed to prove alleged reunion or conjugal life post-2015 – Absence of corroborative documentary or oral evidence – Desertion proved on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 39–44, 56].

Standard of Proof – Matrimonial Proceedings – Preponderance of Probabilities – Not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Civil standard applicable – Trial Court erred in applying stricter standard [Para 44].

Pleadings and Evidence – Credibility of Husband – Contradictory Stand on Employment and Income – Claim of Business Unsubstantiated – Admission of Working as Day Labour – False explanations undermine credibility – Court entitled to disbelieve version [Paras 46–51].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation – Loss of Emotional Bond – Marriage reduced to legal fiction – Continuation would cause mental cruelty to both parties – Marriage held to be beyond repair [Paras 68–73].

Irretrievable Breakdown as Cruelty – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27(1)(d) – Cruelty to be interpreted broadly – Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita held irretrievable breakdown to be an integral component of cruelty – Ratio applicable equally to Special Marriage Act due to pari materia provisions [Paras 59–61, 75–83, 93–94].

Precedent – Article 141 – Binding Nature – Rakesh Raman v. Kavita distinguished from Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda – Latter not overruling former – Rakesh Raman declared law on cruelty, not confined to Article 142 – High Court bound to apply same [Paras 83–92].

Decision – Divorce Granted – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion Established – Marriage Dissolved – Visitation Rights to Father safeguarded in interest of minor child – No order as to costs [Paras 95–100].