Banking Law - Jurisdiction – Bar under SARFAESI Act and RDB Act – Guarantor filed suit seeking declaration that no liability accrued under guarantee and obtained injunction restraining bank from proceeding under guarantee – Held: Suit in substance sought adjudication of liability forming subject matter of recovery proceedings – Section 34 SARFAESI Act bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters which DRT is empowered to determine and prohibits injunction against actions “taken or to be taken” – Section 18 RDB Act similarly bars jurisdiction in matters relating to recovery of debts – Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain suit and could not grant injunction restraining recovery proceedings [Paras 48, 50-57, 64-68, 72].

Injunction – Restraint on recovery proceedings – Scope of Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Expression “taken or to be taken” covers even prospective actions – Even if no proceedings under RDB Act were pending on date of suit, civil court could not injunct institution or continuation of such proceedings – Injunction restraining bank from proceeding under guarantee unsustainable [Paras 55-57, 72].

Guarantee – Extent of liability – Guarantor contended liability limited to value of share in mortgaged land and required prior determination – Held: Such plea constitutes defence to recovery claim and can be agitated before DRT/NCLT – Bank not required to obtain prior civil court determination before initiating proceedings under SARFAESI, RDB Act or IBC – Liability of guarantor co-extensive with principal borrower in absence of clear restrictive covenant in body of guarantee – Commercial Court misdirected itself in holding liability must first be determined in separate suit [Paras 45-48, 77-79, 87-88, 90].

IBC – Proceedings under Section 7 – Jurisdiction of NCLT – Bank initiated CIRP against guarantor – NCLT required to ascertain existence of default under Section 7(4) IBC – Section 63 IBC bars civil court from entertaining proceedings in matters within jurisdiction of NCLT/NCLAT – Civil court cannot interdict NCLT proceedings by injuncting bank from acting on guarantee [Paras 80-86].

Pleadings – Objection to jurisdiction – Whether can be raised in appeal – Held: Pure question of law going to root of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage – Court bound to take note of statutory bar even if not expressly pleaded – Bank not estopped from challenging jurisdiction despite filing separate writ against rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application [Paras 73-77].

Parallel proceedings – Independent suit by borrower/guarantor – Even assuming maintainability of independent suit, DRT proceedings cannot be stayed – Declaratory suit cannot impede expeditious adjudication under special statutes meant for recovery of bank dues [Paras 69-71].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 25.07.2024 granting temporary injunction set aside – Commercial Court held to have no jurisdiction to grant injunction restraining bank from proceeding under guarantee or under SARFAESI, RDB Act or IBC.

Contempt of Court – Scope – Preferential Right in Re-engagement – High Court in earlier judgment (O.P.(KAT) Nos. 564 & 565 of 2024) directed that if fresh temporary hands are recruited in the place of petitioners, such appointments shall not be made without giving petitioners preferential right for engagement on daily wage basis – Petitioners alleged violation on basis of subsequent appointment order dated 12.06.2025 – Held: Contempt jurisdiction attracted only on wilful and deliberate disobedience of specific direction – No prima facie case made out [Paras 1, 8–9].

Daily Wage Engagement – Replacement – Distinction Between Fresh Scheme and Replacement – Appointments made pursuant to notification dated 18.02.2025 under special scheme “Karunya Arogya Surakhsha Padhathi (KASP)” for 179 days – Age criteria 21–42 years – Petitioners not within prescribed age group – Engagement not in posts earlier held by petitioners – Held: Appointments not “in the place of the petitioners” as contemplated in earlier judgment [Paras 7, 9].

Compliance with Judgment – Interpretation – Earlier judgment clarified that petitioners, being daily wage workers without sanctioned posts, cannot claim continuity – Protection limited to preferential right only if fresh temporary hands are recruited in their place – Since impugned appointments were under a distinct notification and scheme, no violation established [Paras 8–9].

Contempt Proceedings – Standard of Proof – Court must be satisfied of clear, wilful disobedience – Where respondents demonstrate appointments were under separate scheme and not replacement, contempt not made out [Paras 7–9].

Decision: No prima facie case of wilful disobedience established – Contempt Cases (C) Nos. 1992 and 2011 of 2025 closed.

Education Law – RTE Act, 2009 – Teacher Redeployment – Validity of G.O. dated 14.11.2025 – Government Order issued to maintain prescribed pupil–teacher ratio under Section 25 of the 2009 Act – Challenge on grounds of arbitrariness, mid-session transfer and absence of procedure – Held: G.O. is supplemental and curative in nature, issued to ensure strict statutory compliance and cannot be termed arbitrary or ultra vires – Policy decision in furtherance of Article 21-A – Valid [Paras 71–79, 103–109, 132].

Service Law – Transfer – Incidence of Service – Scope of Judicial Review – Transfer within same district pursuant to policy for rationalization – No mala fides or statutory violation established – Courts do not sit in appeal over administrative transfers – Interference confined to cases of mala fide, arbitrariness or breach of statutory rules – Petitioners failed to demonstrate such infirmity – Limited judicial restraint reiterated [Paras 93–100, 124, 136–137].

RTE Act – Section 25 – Pupil-Teacher Ratio – Continuing Obligation – Rule 21 of 2011 Rules provides annual review before July – Not an absolute embargo on corrective measures thereafter – State retains power to issue executive instructions in November to address emergent shortages – Obligation to maintain PTR is continuing and overrides timing objection [Paras 82, 88–90].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Procedural Compliance – Though G.O. not arbitrary per se, implementation must be data-driven and transparent – Non-preparation of consolidated verified list of surplus/deficit schools or improper inclusion of Shiksha Mitras contrary to law may render action arbitrary – Issue relates to improper implementation, not absence of power – Individual grievances to be examined by District Level Committee [Paras 112–115, 138–142].

Policy Decisions – Judicial Restraint – Education Policy – Court reiterates that in matters affecting policy and administrative exigencies, judicial review is limited to legality of decision-making process – Courts cannot substitute executive wisdom unless action is unconstitutional, mala fide or contrary to statute – Transfers to achieve statutory mandate of RTE Act fall within executive domain [Paras 122–129].

Natural Justice – Mass Adjustment – Opportunity of Representation – Though transfer is incidence of service, fairness requires affected teachers be permitted to submit objections where large-scale rationalization undertaken – Directions issued to file individual representations before District Level Committee – Speaking orders to be passed [Paras 118–121, 145].

Data Verification – UDISE Portal – Necessity of Accurate Institutional Data – Apparent non-verification of sanctioned strength and working strength necessitates calibrated judicial intervention – Authorities directed to verify and update authentic data and ensure redeployment strictly as per RTE Act [Paras 138, 143–147].

Directions:

(i) Government Order dated 14.11.2025 upheld – Challenge rejected

(ii) Petitioners to submit separate representations within one week before District Level Committee

(iii) Committee to decide objections by reasoned and speaking orders within one month

(iv) Status quo to be maintained for one month or till decision, whichever earlier

(v) Authorities to verify and update UDISE data and ensure maintenance of prescribed pupil–teacher ratio in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009

(vi) Writ petitions disposed of with observations and directions [Paras 145–148].

Revenue Law – Suo Motu Proceedings – Delay – Section 79A – Bombay Land Revenue Code – Petitioners purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 59/paiki/1, Moje Ghanshyampur, Taluka Limbdi, District Surendranagar admeasuring 8 Acres 32 Gunthas from heirs of Raja Bechar under registered sale deed dated 19.03.1990 – Mutation Entry No. 650 certified on 24.05.1992 – Assistant Collector initiated suo motu proceedings in 2003 alleging breach of tenure conditions (Sharat Bhang) – Ordered vesting of land in State Government – Confirmed by Collector and Special Secretary (Appeals) – Held: Proceedings vitiated by unexplained delay of 11 years – Orders passed without jurisdiction – Writ allowed – Impugned order quashed and set aside [Paras 1–25].

"Suo Motu Powers Cannot Be Exercised After Unreasonable Delay — Delay of 11 Years Fatal"

Suo Motu Proceedings – Delay – Reasonable Period – Revenue authority initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 79A after a delay of 11 years from certification of Mutation Entry No. 650 in 1992 – No explanation offered for the inordinate delay – Held: Even where no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of suo motu revisional powers, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable period – Delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon as it creates uncertainty and unsettles vested rights and third-party interests – A delay of 11 years without explanation is wholly unreasonable and vitiates the proceedings – Revenue authority cannot suddenly awaken after more than a decade and unsettle vested rights – Exercise of power by the Assistant Collector tantamounts to arbitrary and illegal exercise of such power – Relying on Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695; Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya v. State of Gujarat, 2013(2) GLR 1788; Devjibhai Kalabhai Patel v. Collector, Rajkot, SCA No. 21269 of 2017 (confirmed by Division Bench in LPA No. 4963 of 2025) [Paras 15–23].

"Section 79A — Non-Confiscatory — No Power to Vest Land in State or Annul Registered Sale Deed"

Section 79A – Bombay Land Revenue Code – Scope and Jurisdiction – Section 79A empowers the revenue authority only to undertake summary eviction of unauthorised occupants – It does not confer any power of confiscation, forfeiture, or vesting of land in the State Government – It does not empower the revenue authority to annul a registered sale deed or divest a lawful title-holder or bona fide purchaser – Revenue authority, by ordering vesting of land in the State, acted beyond the four corners of the statute and assumed powers not vested in it – Relying on Sharadaben v. State of Gujarat, LPA No. 432 of 2018; State of Gujarat v. Kunjalbhai Lalitbhai Patel, LPA No. 1052 of 2021; Akshat Associates v. Special Secretary (Appeals), SCA No. 7752 of 2016 [Paras 5–6, 22–24].

"Bona Fide Purchaser Under Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Treated as Unauthorised Occupant"

Section 79A – Unauthorised Occupant – Registered Sale Deed – Petitioners are lawful purchasers of the land under a duly registered sale deed which remains valid, operative and unchallenged – Revenue record nowhere mentions the land to be of new tenure since the first mutation entry in 1965 – Petitioners purchased the land after verifying revenue records which did not reflect new tenure status – No civil proceedings initiated to set aside or cancel the registered sale deed – Unless a registered conveyance is set aside by a competent civil court, title conveyed thereunder remains absolute and enforceable – Revenue authorities cannot unilaterally annul sale deeds; such matters must go to a civil court – Petitioners cannot be dubbed unauthorised occupants so as to attract Section 79A – Assumption of jurisdiction by the Assistant Collector is fundamentally flawed [Paras 10–11, 22–24].

"Government Resolutions — Conversion of New Tenure to Old Tenure After 15 Years of Continuous Cultivation"

Government Resolutions – Tenure Conversion – Government Resolutions dated 11.03.1996, 19.10.2000, 20.12.2006, 04.07.2008 and 17.03.2017 mandate that lands granted as new or restricted tenure, upon continuous agricultural use for 15 years, must be converted to old tenure – Such conversion is an obligatory duty of the revenue authority to be carried out suo motu without requiring any application from the agriculturist – Petitioners had completed more than three decades of continuous cultivation well before 2002 – Revenue authorities were obligated to convert the land to old tenure rather than initiate punitive action [Para 9].

Decision: Writ Application allowed – Impugned order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/SNR 76-2008 quashed and set aside – Rule made absolute.

Dacoity – Appreciation of Evidence – Failure to Prove Occurrence Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Trial Court presumed factum of dacoity without proper analysis – Material lapses in investigation including non-seizure of empty cartridges despite alleged firing by both sides, non-recovery of broken lock, and failure to verify alleged possession of Rs.6,000/- – No recovery of looted articles – Held: Prosecution failed to establish foundational fact of dacoity beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 16-18, 26].

Identification – Co-villagers – Inconsistencies – Witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding number of dacoits, covering of faces, weapons carried and injuries caused – Medical evidence did not corroborate allegation of knife injury – Site plan did not support position from where accused allegedly identified – Identification in torch light doubtful – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 21-25].

Interested Witnesses – Village Enmity – Possibility of False Implication – All witnesses related or interested – Prior complaint and village rivalry including Pradhani election dispute on record – Accused residents of same village with no criminal antecedents – Improbable that villagers would commit dacoity barefaced in same village – Prosecution version not free from doubt [Paras 21, 25-26].

Appellate Interference – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and material infirmities exist in appreciation of evidence, appellate court justified in reversing conviction – Reliance placed on Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu v. State of M.P. [Para 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 29.08.1983 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC set aside – Surviving appellants acquitted – Appeal already abated qua deceased appellants.

Murder – Dowry Harassment – Strangulation Followed by Burning – Young married woman found 90% burnt inside matrimonial home – Post-mortem revealed fracture of hyoid bone, laceration of carotid arteries, absence of soot particles in trachea and bronchus and smell of kerosene – Medical evidence proved death by asphyxia due to strangulation prior to burning – Burning held post-mortem to give colour of suicide – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 498-A IPC upheld [Paras 16-18, 21-23].

Circumstantial Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Presence of accused in house at relevant time admitted in initial information – Subsequent plea of alibi by husband and mother-in-law disbelieved – Defence evidence contrary to earlier admission and not worthy of credence – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused – Principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda applied and satisfied [Paras 14-15, 24-26].

Dowry Demand – Cruelty Soon Before Death – Evidence of father (P.W.1) and brother (P.W.2) established persistent demand of Rs.1000/- and harassment including denial of food – Deceased not permitted to attend brother’s marriage due to non-payment – Threat extended that life would be in danger – Cruelty proved though charge under Section 304-B IPC not sustained – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC affirmed [Paras 19-22].

Alibi – Burden of Proof – Accused claimed absence at time of incident – Plea required strict proof – Defence witnesses contradicted written information lodged by accused himself admitting presence – Plea of alibi held afterthought and rejected [Paras 11-15].

Remission – Article 161 Constitution of India – Effect on Conviction – Appellant No.2 released on remission by Governor after serving substantial sentence – Dismissal of appeal and confirmation of conviction does not affect constitutional power of remission – Conviction upheld but appellant not required to surrender to serve remaining sentence – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Sriharan and Suresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 498-A IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed – Appeal abated qua deceased appellants – Appellant No.2 not required to surrender in view of remission granted under Article 161 of Constitution of India.

Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Section 2(vi) – Pension under Non-Contributory Superannuation Trust – Whether “Wages” – Employees resigned after completing qualifying years of service – Filed Form-N under Rule 31 claiming pension – Authority held pension payable under trust deed amounts to wages – Single Judge affirmed – Held: Any definite sum payable on fulfilment of employment conditions constitutes wages – Exclusion under Section 2(vi)(3) applies to employer’s contribution to fund, not pension payable from accumulated fund – Pension under trust scheme falls within inclusive definition of wages – Appeals dismissed [Paras 12–18, 22–24].

Jurisdiction – Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 – Competent Authority – Challenge to assumption of jurisdiction – Special statutory forum created for recovery of wages – If subject matter falls within statutory definition of wages, authority has jurisdiction – Civil Court jurisdiction impliedly barred to that extent – No jurisdictional error or erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by Referee – Writ Court rightly declined interference [Paras 15–17, 22–23].

Pension – Effect of Resignation – Superannuation Trust Deed – Eligibility based on completion of 5/10/15/20 years of continuous service – No clause restricting benefit to only superannuated employees – No forfeiture clause upon resignation – Respondents completed qualifying service before resignation – Held: Resignation after crystallization of eligibility does not defeat vested pension rights – Pension treated as earned remuneration and legal right [Paras 11, 19–20].

Definition of Wages – Judicial Interpretation – Scope extends beyond express contractual stipulations – Includes remuneration payable under contract, law, award or instrument upon fulfilment of service obligations – Termination by resignation or superannuation immaterial once entitlement accrues – Pension under trust deed covered within broad interpretation of “wages” [Paras 12–14, 17–18].

Non-Contributory Pension Fund – Legal Character – Employer-funded trust not a discretionary bounty – Once scheme framed and eligibility satisfied, benefit becomes enforceable obligation – Non-contribution by employee affects funding mechanism only – Employer cannot deny disbursement arbitrarily – Pension protected as earned benefit under principles of fairness and administrative law [Para 21].

Maintainability – Form-N Application – Status as “Person Employed” – Eligibility accrues on completion of qualifying service – It is immaterial whether employee continues in service on date of application – Right crystallized upon fulfilment of service slabs under trust deed – Application under Rule 31 maintainable [Para 13, 22].

Decision: MAT 682 of 2025, MAT 683 of 2025, MAT 684 of 2025 and MAT 685 of 2025 dismissed – Judgment dated 11.04.2025 in WPA 1617 of 2025 affirmed – Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by competent authority under West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 upheld – Connected applications (CAN 1 of 2025) disposed of.

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Alleged breach of interim injunction restraining interference with possession – Petitioner alleged that respondents entered suit land on 28.05.2021, abused and assaulted him and attempted dispossession despite injunction dated 14.10.2008 – Affidavits of witnesses and FIR No. 232 of 2021 did not disclose actual dispossession or change in possession – Mere entry into land and assault, without proof of willful and intentional disobedience of injunction order, insufficient to constitute civil contempt – Held: Essential ingredient of willfulness not established – Petition dismissed [Paras 22-25].

Injunction Order – Scope and Compliance – Interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (C) in Second Appeal restraining interference with possession – Record shows petitioner continues in possession – No material demonstrating that respondents have taken over possession or committed overt act in violation of specific terms of injunction – Allegations of obstruction and threats, even if true, do not ipso facto amount to contempt unless clear breach of court’s mandate is proved [Paras 15-17, 21-23].

Limitation – Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Bar of one year for initiation of contempt proceedings from date of alleged act – Alleged incident dated 28.05.2021 – Contempt petition filed on 25.02.2025 after more than four years – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Held: Petition hopelessly barred by limitation and not maintainable [Para 27].

Civil Contempt – Requirement of Willful Disobedience – Mere disobedience not sufficient – Element of willingness indispensable – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh – In absence of clear, deliberate and intentional violation, contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Contempt Petition dismissed – No willful disobedience proved – Petition also barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Public Employment – Recruitment Process – Prescription of Minimum Threshold Marks – Power Reserved in Advertisement – Recruitment Advertisement expressly stipulated that “minimum threshold marks, wherever prescribed/required, shall be decided by the Competent Authority” and that process was “suggestive only” – Minimum qualifying marks for Paper-III notified prior to conduct of Stage-II – Held: Prescription of threshold marks in exercise of expressly reserved power does not amount to changing rules of the game mid-way – No arbitrariness established [Paras 20-23].

Rules of the Game – Alteration Mid-way – Distinction between Post-Evaluation Change and Pre-Stage Prescription – Petitioners contended that introduction of qualifying marks after commencement of recruitment vitiated process – Court held that what is impermissible is change in criteria after evaluation or after conclusion of relevant stage – Prescription of benchmark prior to conduct of Paper-III falls within permissible domain – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak – No violation of settled principles governing recruitment [Paras 22-24].

Shortlisting – Functional Requirement of Post – Administrative Discretion of Expert Body – Threshold justified by CSIR on basis of functional requirements of Section Officer post – No material produced to show benchmark was manifestly arbitrary or disproportionate – Courts slow to interfere in academic/expert matters when decision traceable to enabling clause – Held: Administrative decision valid [Paras 25].

Estoppel – Participation without Protest – Petitioners appeared in Stage-II after notification dated 28.06.2024 prescribing minimum marks and challenged process only after being unsuccessful – Held: Candidates who participate in selection process without demur and take chance cannot challenge criteria after failing to qualify – Principle of acquiescence attracted [Paras 26].

Judicial Review – Scope under Articles 226/227 – Tribunal upheld prescription of minimum marks on basis of enabling clause and prior notification – No illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in Tribunal’s reasoning – High Court declined to reappreciate administrative discretion absent constitutional or statutory violation [Paras 27-28].

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Selected Candidates not Impleaded – Preliminary objection raised – Court declined to examine in detail as challenge failed on merits – Held: Once prescription upheld, issue of non-joinder academic [Para 27].

Decision: Batch of Writ Petitions dismissed – Impugned order dated 08.09.2025 of Central Administrative Tribunal upheld – Prescription of minimum qualifying marks in Paper-III of CASE-2023 sustained – All pending applications closed.