Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonor of Cheque – Presumption of Liability – The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 8,00,000, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant provided evidence of the cheque, the dishonor memo, and service of legal notice, which the petitioner failed to rebut. Held: The presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies, and the petitioner failed to present a probable defense [Paras 7-10].

Legal Notice – Proper Service Established – The petitioner disputed the proper service of the legal notice but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The court found that the notice was served at the address mentioned by the petitioner, and the statutory requirements were satisfied [Paras 12-13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – The court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC is limited to supervisory review and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice. Held: No such miscarriage of justice was found, and the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts were upheld [Paras 17-19].

Decision:  The criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of two years' imprisonment and compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are upheld. The petitioner is directed to surrender to serve the sentence, and the trial court is instructed to release any amount deposited by the petitioner to the respondent on filing the appropriate application [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action, Locus Standi, Limitation, Court Fees, Non-Joinder of Parties – Plaintiffs (appellants) sought declaration and injunction regarding property inherited from Tej Partap Singh – Suit challenged the validity of a Will dated 20.03.1971 and alleged oral Wills of other deceased family members, and contested over 23 sale deeds – Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruling that plaintiffs lacked locus standi, the suit was time-barred, and there was non-joinder of necessary parties – Findings upheld by First Appellate Court [Paras 2, 8-9].

Locus Standi and Cause of Action – Grandchildren’s Claim Over Ancestor's Property – Court held plaintiffs, as grandchildren of the deceased Tej Partap Singh, lacked locus standi to challenge his Will, as inheritance rights crystallize upon death – Grandchildren are excluded from Class-I heirs when direct children are alive under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs could only claim a share in their mother’s (deceased daughter of Tej Partap Singh) property, but not directly challenge the Will or other transactions regarding Tej Partap Singh's estate [Paras 30-32, 35, 40-41].

Limitation Period – Bar on Challenging Old Transactions – Claims against transactions executed from 1971 to 2005 were time-barred – Trial Court observed plaintiffs’ attempt to circumvent the limitation law by asserting a later "discovery" of facts – Held: Plaintiffs cannot claim inheritance rights directly from Tej Partap Singh or his wives as their mother never contested the Will during her lifetime, and limitation cannot be bypassed by creative drafting [Paras 50-51, 53, 58].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Numerous transactions involved third-party transferees who were not joined in the suit, making the suit defective under Order I Rule 9 CPC – Effective decree could not be passed in their absence, thus defeating the relief sought [Paras 59-62].

Court Fees – Applicability of Ad Valorem Fees on Challenged Transactions – Plaintiffs required to pay ad valorem Court fees as they sought cancellation of transactions executed by the deceased without being in possession – Relief sought was substantive and plaintiffs were held liable to pay fees based on transaction values, rather than a nominal amount [Paras 63-65, 71].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s rejection of plaint upheld as plaintiffs lacked cause of action and locus standi – Suit was barred by limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and improper valuation of Court fees – Reaffirmed that plaintiffs, as non-Class I heirs, have no direct claim over the ancestral property while direct heirs are alive, and inheritance rights cannot be challenged decades after the succession is settled [Paras 73-74].
 

Civil Procedure – Co-ownership – Suit for Possession – The appellants challenged the trial court's decree for possession of a portion of the suit property in favor of the respondent, who was a co-owner – The appellants contended that without a decree of partition, the suit for possession was not maintainable – The court held that in view of the oral settlement between the co-owners and the factual division of the property into two separate portions, a suit for possession was maintainable without a formal partition – The co-ownership was not denied, and the respondent's constructive possession was established through oral and documentary evidence [Paras 42-48].

Oral Settlement – Family Arrangement – The court recognized that an oral settlement between the co-owners concerning the division of property could be upheld if corroborated by evidence – In this case, the family arrangement dividing the property into two parts, with the respondent occupying one portion and the appellants the other, was proven through the testimony of witnesses and documents such as the lease deed – Held: The oral settlement is valid and enforceable, and no formal partition is required [Paras 45-53].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court upheld the trial court's judgment granting possession to the respondent – The appellants' argument regarding the requirement of a partition suit was rejected – The respondent was entitled to possession of the portion of the property and damages for wrongful occupation by the appellants [Paras 59-60].

Locus Standi – Plaintiffs' Lack of Standing – Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs, grandchildren of the deceased Tej Pratap Singh, lacked locus standi to challenge his Will as they did not fall within the Class-I legal heirs during the lifetime of their mother, Ravinder Kaur, who was one of the legal heirs – The succession rights crystallized upon Tej Pratap Singh’s death, and plaintiffs cannot claim a higher right than their mother – Plaintiffs have no right to challenge transactions or Wills after 43 years since their mother had never challenged the same during her lifetime [Paras 35-37].

Bar of Limitation – Challenge After 43 Years – Suit Time-Barred – The suit challenging the Wills and numerous transactions, including mutations and transfers, dating back to 1971-2005, was found to be time-barred – The court held that clever drafting to create an illusion of a cause of action does not avoid the statute of limitations – Plaintiffs' contention that they only became aware of these transactions after the death of their mother was rejected [Paras 50-53].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Transactions Challenged Without Involving Transferees – Plaintiffs failed to implead the necessary parties, including transferees and vendees in the numerous transactions they sought to challenge – The court held that no effective decree could be passed in the absence of these necessary parties, rendering the suit defective and unsustainable [Paras 59-62].

Court Fee – Plaintiffs Required to Pay Ad Valorem Court Fee – Plaintiffs sought declaration of transactions as null and void while also claiming joint possession – Since the properties had already been transferred to third parties, plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem court fee on the challenged transactions – Plaintiffs could not avoid this requirement by merely claiming joint possession [Paras 63-71].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for lack of locus standi, bar of limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and failure to pay the requisite ad valorem court fee [Paras 73-74].
 

Anticipatory Bail - Offenses under Sections 120B, 406, 420 IPC and Trade Marks Act - Custodial Interrogation Not Required - The accused were charged with conspiracy, cheating, and breach of trust involving the development and delivery of software. The court found no necessity for custodial interrogation, considering that the first accused was already granted anticipatory bail. Petitioners were granted bail on the condition of cooperating with the investigation [Paras 5-8].

Conditions for Bail - Cooperation with Investigation Mandated - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioners to surrender for interrogation and cooperate with the investigation, including deemed custody for recovery purposes. Petitioners are to appear before the Investigating Officer as required and are prohibited from contacting witnesses or leaving India without court permission [Paras 9-10].

Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) – Eligibility for General Category – The petitioners argued that candidates from the EWS category who scored higher than the last candidate in the General Category should be considered for unreserved seats – Held: As per Article 16(6) of the Constitution, EWS reservation is distinct, and candidates selected under this category should not automatically be counted towards general seats – The Court ruled that the criteria outlined in the notification dated 30.10.2020 were correctly applied, requiring EWS candidates to fill EWS-designated seats, even if their scores exceeded those of General Category candidates [Paras 34-36, 39].

Principle of Reservation in EWS – Prospective Application of Policy Changes – Petitioners contended that the instructions of 30.10.2020 could not retroactively apply to the recruitment process initiated by Advertisement No. 2 dated 30.01.2020 – Held: The Court held that the State’s policy on EWS reservation applied prospectively and could be enforced in this instance, as it aligns with the broader intent to support EWS candidates through targeted reservation in designated seats [Paras 37-38].

Legal Precedent – Adjustment against Unreserved Vacancies – The Court upheld the principle that EWS candidates can only compete in the General Category if they are selected solely on merit, independent of any reservation – This principle aligns with Government directives that EWS candidates are not to be counted towards unreserved vacancies if they benefit from the EWS quota [Para 42].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding that the recruitment process complied with constitutional provisions and government notifications on EWS reservation – The petitioners' request to be considered under the General Category based on higher scores was denied, affirming the separation of EWS and General Category lists in merit-based recruitment [Paras 41, 42].
 

Family Law – Maintenance for Children – Father's Obligation – Petitioner contested the Family Court’s order awarding monthly maintenance to his two daughters, arguing inability to pay and asserting that the court did not allow him sufficient opportunity to submit objections – Court held that as the daughters’ legal guardian, the father is obligated to provide for their maintenance and educational expenses, especially given that one daughter is a minor and the other, a non-earning adult – Held: Order upheld; father’s duty includes supporting daughters until marriage or self-sufficiency [Paras 8-12].

Procedural Fairness – Opportunity to Present Objections – Petitioner alleged lack of opportunity to file objections in the Family Court – Court found no procedural error, noting that sufficient time was provided to the petitioner, who failed to submit the required documents – Held: No violation of due process; Family Court’s order sustained [Paras 14-16].

Decision:

The revision petition is dismissed. The Family Court’s order is upheld, directing the petitioner to pay ₹6,000 per month to each daughter, plus ₹1,04,000 for educational expenses and ₹5,000 for litigation costs.

Administrative Law – Suspension of Contractor’s Registration – Opportunity of Hearing Required – The petitioner challenged the suspension of his contractor registration with the MPPWD for a period of two years, arguing that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the suspension – Held: The suspension of registration for non-completion of work requires a separate show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing – The impugned order of suspension is unsustainable in law as no such opportunity was granted – Petition allowed, suspension order quashed [Paras 8-12].

Blacklisting or Suspension – Procedural Safeguards – Guidelines – The court referred to the Circular dated 24/03/2015 of the MPPWD and observed that before blacklisting or suspending a contractor’s registration, the competent authority must issue a show-cause notice and consider the seriousness of the alleged conduct – The procedural safeguards were not adhered to in the present case, rendering the suspension order void [Paras 9-12].

Debarment and Blacklisting – Harm to Public Interest and Contractor’s Rights – The court emphasized that blacklisting or suspension should only be invoked in serious cases affecting public interest and should not be readily imposed for ordinary breaches of contract where there is a bona fide dispute – Citing The Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2024), the court highlighted the severe consequences of debarment on a contractor’s ability to engage in future contracts [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed – The suspension order dated 03/02/2022 is quashed – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Civil Procedure – Executability of Decree – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – The petitioner challenged the execution of an ex-parte decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, arguing that the suit value of ₹9,00,000 exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction of ₹5,00,000, rendering the decree null and void – Held: A decree passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is not inherently void but voidable, and objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial or appellate court – The objection cannot be raised in execution proceedings [Paras 13-14].

Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Waiver and Estoppel – The court noted that no objection to pecuniary jurisdiction was raised by the judgment debtor during the trial or in appeal, despite the transfer of the case from the Senior Division to the Junior Division – Failure to raise such an objection earlier precludes it from being raised during execution – The decree is valid and executable as no failure of justice occurred [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The trial court’s decision to proceed with execution is upheld, as the objection to pecuniary jurisdiction is not permissible in execution proceedings [Para 15].