Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Obstructionist Claim – Fabricated Ownership Documents – Application Dismissed – The Applicant, son of the original judgment debtor, filed an obstructionist notice in an execution proceeding based on a sale deed dated 26.11.1990 – Both Trial and Appellate Courts found the sale deed to be unregistered, unstamped, and supported by inconsistent and manipulated records – Held: The Applicant failed to establish any independent right or title, and the Courts rightly dismissed the obstructionist application [Paras 14-18, 25].

Professional Misconduct – Role of Advocate – Bar Council Rules – Enquiry Ordered – Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle sought adjournment after arguments were concluded and judgment was to be passed – Despite being aware of proceedings, he attempted to delay the matter by filing vakalatnama at a late stage – Held: Conduct was prima facie misconduct, violating Bar Council rules – Directed: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate enquiry [Paras 3-10].

Doctrine of Clean Hands – Abuse of Process – Fabricated Pleadings – Dismissal Justified – The Applicant suppressed material facts, relied on contradictory sale deeds, and attempted to delay proceedings – Held: Courts are not to be misused to perpetuate falsehoods – Petitioner did not approach with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 20-22].

Eviction Decree – Delay in Execution – Obstructionist Proceedings – Court Receiver Appointed – Despite decree passed in 2016, execution was delayed for 9 years due to obstructionist proceedings filed by son of judgment debtor – Held: Obstructionist proceedings based on fraudulent documents were abuse of process – Receiver appointed to take immediate possession and hand over to decree-holder [Paras 22-25].

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act - Limitation for Sending Demand Notice – Exclusion of Date of Intimation – Notice Held Within Time – The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was sent on the 31st day after intimation of dishonour – Held: The date of receipt of bank intimation must be excluded while computing the 30-day period – On applying the correct legal standard, the notice was issued within time – Trial Court’s view was contrary to binding precedent and hence liable to be set aside [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Material Alteration in Cheque – Signature of Accused Validates Correction – Conviction Restored – Trial Court found material alteration in cheque amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- as fatal to complainant’s case – Held: Correction in amount was duly counter-signed by accused – No plausible explanation or defense was put forth by accused – No rebuttal evidence led – Mere admission by complainant insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Finding of material alteration erroneous in law [Paras 20-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Failure to Rebut Presumption – No Reply to Demand Notice – Conviction Warranted – Despite receiving statutory demand notice, the accused did not dispute the liability or issue a reply – No evidence of lack of financial capacity or alternate explanation for issuance of cheque – Appellate Court found presumption under Section 139 unshaken and complainant's case proved – Judgment of acquittal reversed [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal against Acquittal – Principles for Appellate Interference – Trial Court Ignored Material Evidence – When the Trial Court’s findings are based on misapplication of law and disregard of material evidence, the Appellate Court may interfere – Present case warranted interference due to perverse reasoning on both limitation and cheque alteration issues – Judgment of acquittal set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 22-23].

Civil Writ - Employment Law - Recruitment Process – Statutory Compliance – Statute 415 of Pune University – Selection Process Vitiated – Petitioners alleged manipulation, lack of quorum, superficial interviews, and tampering of interview records – Management’s failure to comply with Circular No. 102/2023 requiring same-day submission of selection records – Held: Selection process not in conformity with statutory requirements, violating procedural fairness [Paras 3-6, 29-34].

Recruitment Process – Approval and Cancellation – Role of University and Management – University granted provisional approval post-facto while Management had already resolved to cancel the process due to irregularities – Held: Management retains discretion to cancel recruitment; University correctly deferred to Management’s decision per Statute 411(2) [Paras 14-15, 30, 34.5].

Selected Candidates – No Indefeasible Right – Mere Inclusion in Merit List Does Not Confer Right to Appointment – Candidates sought writ of mandamus for appointment orders based on selection – Held: No enforceable right arises unless appointment is completed – Cancellation of process by appointing authority renders claims untenable [Paras 11-13, 18, 35, 38].

Public Employment – Corruption Allegations – Management’s Conduct Condemned – Selection Process Marred by Allegations of Bribery, Fraud, Tampering of Records – Complaints from trustees and candidates pointed to large-scale corruption – Held: Entire process stands vitiated; segregation of tainted and untainted selections not feasible [Paras 5, 6, 34.3-34.4, 37].

Constitutional Principles – Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Fairness in Public Employment – Absence of Transparency and Procedural Regularity – Held: Process violated constitutional guarantees of equality and right to pursue occupation – Justified cancellation [Paras 7, 34.1-34.2].

Precedent – Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025) – Cancellation of Entire Selection Upheld in Case of Widespread Irregularities – Applied to present facts – Held: In light of systemic malaise, entire process rightly annulled [Para 36].

Decision – Entire Selection Process Cancelled – Petitions by Selected Candidates Dismissed – Petition by Unselected Candidates Disposed – Management Saddled with Costs of ₹1,00,000 for Lack of Bonafides and Procedural Abuse – Request for Extension of Interim Relief Rejected [Paras 38-44].
 

Insurance Law - Insurance Coverage – Interpretation of Contract – Security Guard Not Covered – Appeal Allowed – The deceased was working as a security guard in a transport company and died in an accident during the course of employment – The insurance policy obtained by the employer listed coverage for cleaners and supervisors, but not for security personnel – Held: Security Guard did not fall within the specified categories in the policy and hence the insurer is not liable [Paras 9-11, 34].

Employee’s Compensation – Pay and Recovery – Not Applicable to Contractual Policies – Request Rejected – The claimants argued for applying the 'pay and recovery' principle despite insurer not being liable under the contract – Held: The doctrine of pay and recovery, though applicable in statutory motor vehicle insurance, cannot be extended to contractual policies under the Employees’ Compensation Act – Employer alone liable [Paras 12-14].

Construction of Insurance Contracts – Strict Interpretation Required – Security Personnel Not Implied – The policy was interpreted strictly according to its terms – Held: As the policy did not expressly include security guards, they cannot be presumed covered – Broader interpretation rejected as being contrary to contract law [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Insurer Exonerated – The insurer’s liability under the impugned award was set aside – The employer alone was held liable to pay compensation with interest and penalty – Insurer entitled to refund of deposited amount after 8 weeks [Paras 8, 11, 14].

Rent Law - Eviction – Bonafide Requirement – Section 11(3) of Kerala Rent Control Act – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Rent Control Courts wrongly placed burden on landlord – Held: The burden of proof to establish existence of alternate vacant premises lies on the tenant, not landlord – Landlord need not plead or prove non-availability of other premises – Orders set aside and eviction granted [Paras 4-6, 9].

Tenant's Pleadings – Requirement to Specify Vacant Premises – First Proviso to Section 11(3) – Not Satisfied – The tenant vaguely stated availability of other rooms but failed to identify or prove any specific vacant building in landlord's possession – Held: Failure to discharge burden under first proviso to Section 11(3) disqualifies tenant from opposing eviction – Eviction allowed [Paras 5-6].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Misdirection in Applying Law – Both courts below misdirected themselves by imposing burden on landlord – Held: Interference under Section 20 of the Act justified due to legal error and misapplication of precedents [Paras 4, 9].

Decision – Eviction Decreed – Six Months’ Time Granted to Vacate – High Court reversed concurrent findings and allowed eviction – Tenant granted six months’ time to vacate subject to filing affidavit and clearing rent arrears – Conditions imposed for continued occupation during interim period [Para 10].

Bail - Terror Funding and Secessionist Conspiracy – Section 43D(5) UAPA – Prima Facie Bar to Bail – Bail Denied – Appellant alleged to be part of a larger conspiracy with Hurriyat Conference members and banned terrorist outfits to orchestrate unrest and violence in Jammu & Kashmir – Evidence includes sting operations, letters from militant commanders, protected witness statements, and digital materials showing coordination of protest calendars, funding via hawala, and association with terrorist leaders – Court found prima facie material linking appellant to conspiracy and application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA, warranting rejection of bail [Paras 72-94].

Sting Operation – Relevance and Admissibility – Incriminating Admissions – Despite objections regarding entrapment and inadmissibility, Court held that at bail stage, admissibility is not the test – Prima facie, appellant’s admissions on terror funding, stone pelting, and inducing unrest cannot be ignored – Held: Alleged confessions in sting operation supported by protected witness testimonies and voice sample analysis justified reliance at this stage [Paras 78-80].

Attendance at Pro-ISIS Rally – Open Source Video Evidence – Judicial Caution – Video evidence showing appellant participating in a rally with slogans and symbols allegedly supporting ISIS taken into consideration – Court held that distinction between religious flags and ISIS insignia is a matter of trial, but prima facie presence at rally corroborated by witnesses [Paras 81-82].

Protected Witnesses – Strategic Meetings and Protest Coordination – Statements of several protected witnesses (Alpha, Gamma, Jack, etc.) corroborated allegations of appellant’s participation in Hurriyat meetings, incitement to violence, and coordination with Pakistan-based operatives – Their statements supported by seized documents and digital evidence including protest calendars and communications [Paras 86-88].

Length of Incarceration – Not Sufficient for Bail – National Security Implications – Despite seven years of custody, Court emphasized seriousness of charges, presence of prima facie evidence, and threat to national unity as overriding factors – Trial had commenced and was being expedited; hence, prolonged incarceration not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 95-101].

Possibility of Witness Tampering – Relevance in Bail Refusal – Appellant’s continued influence over witnesses cited as a concern – Protected witnesses had expressed fear – Held: Grant of bail may jeopardize trial and endanger safety of those willing to testify [Para 102].
 

Bail - Rape Allegation – Consensual Relationship – Bail Granted - Alleged victim, a 25-year-old educated woman, claimed she was raped after intoxication and later coerced with a forged marriage – Court noted delays in FIR, consensual travel and cohabitation, and contradictions in victim's statements – Found prima facie indications of a soured relationship rather than criminal conduct – Bail granted [Paras 4–10, 30–32, 42].

False Promise to Marry – Not Always Rape – Legal Principle Affirmed - Court cited Supreme Court precedents (Deepak Gulati, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Sheikh Arif) emphasizing that consensual relationships, even if based on failed marriage promises, do not always amount to rape – Held: No evidence that the promise was false from inception [Paras 23–24, 34–35].

Delayed FIR – Adverse Inference – Relationship Timeline Considered - FIR filed nearly five months after the alleged initial offence, despite multiple interactions and trips with the applicant – Court noted the absence of immediate complaint undermined the rape narrative [Paras 12, 42].

Morality vs Criminality – Immorality Not Penal – Social Commentary - Court reflected on societal shifts and increasing misuse of penal provisions post emotional fallout – Held: Not all unethical conduct amounts to crime – Case viewed as fallout of failed personal relations, not rape [Paras 30–33].

Right to Liberty – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – No Flight Risk - Court reiterated constitutional protection under Article 21 – Found no risk of accused absconding or influencing witnesses – No prior criminal record except related case – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 37–41].

Final Decision – Bail Allowed – Conditions Imposed - Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties, with directions to appear on key trial dates – Breach of conditions to result in cancellation of bail [Paras 42–44].
 

Civil Law - Transfer of Execution Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Mere Apprehension Not Sufficient – Petitioner sought transfer of execution petitions E.P.No.2/2024 and E.P.No.3/2024 from Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsapur to III Additional District Judge, Kakinada – Held: No legal ground made out – Execution petitions pertain to decrees passed by Narsapur Court concerning property within its jurisdiction – No reason to bypass normal forum of execution [Paras 5–6, 11–12].

Bias Allegation Against Judicial Officer – Not Tenable Post Transfer – Petitioner cited complaint against X Additional District Judge, Narsapur as basis for apprehension of injustice – Held: The concerned Judge has already been transferred – Apprehension no longer reasonable – Transfer cannot be granted based on vague or past allegations, as per settled law [Paras 7, 10].

Execution Jurisdiction – Territorial and Procedural Boundaries – Property Lies Within Local Limits – Held: As per Sections 38 and 39 CPC, executing court’s territorial jurisdiction over the property is paramount – Order XXI Rules 3 and 48 are not affected by Section 39(4) – Since property lies within Narsapur, execution cannot be shifted outside without legal cause [Paras 8, 11].

Multiplicity of Litigation – No Justification for Transfer Absent Identity of Parties and Cause – Petitioner’s other execution-related claim petitions pending before X Additional District Court at Narsapur – Held: Commonality in schedule property not sufficient ground for transfer – No identity of cause of action or parties between suits to justify consolidation [Para 11].

Decision: Both Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed – No valid legal or factual ground to shift proceedings – Mere apprehension without proof of bias or legal infirmity is insufficient to invoke transfer under Section 24 CPC [Paras 12–13].
 

Criminal L:aw – Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Director’s Vicarious Liability – Section 141 N.I. Act – Complaint Quashed – Petitioner was arrayed as an accused being one of the directors of the company – Allegations in the complaint only made general averments against the petitioner, whereas specific role and responsibility of managing day-to-day affairs attributed only to the signatory and managing director – Held: Mere designation as director not sufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 – Quashing of complaint proper [Paras 6-10]. 
 
Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Absence of Specific Averments – Permissible – Complaint did not contain specific role or responsibility of the petitioner in conduct of business of the company – Petitioner neither signatory to the cheque nor shown as handling financial operations – Held: In view of settled legal principles, permitting trial against petitioner would amount to abuse of process – Complaint quashed qua petitioner [Paras 7-11]. 
 
Judicial Precedent – Reliance on Binding Authority – Vicarious Liability Principles – Applied – Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in National Small Industries Corporation v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, Susela Padmavathy Amma v. Bharti Airtel Ltd., and Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. – Reiterated that specific and clear averments against directors are a sine qua non for fastening vicarious liability – General allegations insufficient [Paras 7-10]. 
 
Decision – Quashing Allowed – Criminal Complaint No. 8437 of 2016 pending before CJM, Mehsana quashed qua petitioner – Proceedings against other accused to continue – Trial to be concluded within six months [Para 11].