Ex-Parte Injunction – Delay in Seeking Relief – Non-Commercial Suit – Interim Relief Denied – Plaintiff filed suit nearly two years after accepting defendants’ resignation and receiving their clarificatory responses – Court held that such delay defeated claim for urgent, ex-parte relief – Trial Court rightly observed no exceptional urgency warranting ex-parte injunction – Held: Discretion exercised by Trial Court is proper; no perversity found to warrant appellate interference [Paras 12–14.2].

Appointment of Receiver and Commissioner – Ex-Parte Relief – Balance of Convenience – Rejected – Trial Court refused ex-parte appointment of receiver and commissioner, noting plaintiff’s delay and absence of urgent risk of destruction of evidence – Liberty granted to seek such reliefs after serving notice to defendants – Held: Proper exercise of discretion; no exceptional circumstance shown – Appellate Court declined interference under Order 43 and Article 227 [Paras 15–16.2].

Scope of Appellate and Supervisory Jurisdiction – Order 43 and Article 227 – Judicial Discipline Reaffirmed – Appellate court reiterated limited scope to interfere with discretionary orders unless patently perverse or arbitrary – Cited precedents like Wander Ltd., Ramakant Choksi, and Sameer Suresh Gupta – Held: Trial Court's decision within bounds of law; no gross failure of justice made out [Paras 11–11.4].

Decision – Appeals and Writ Dismissed – No error, perversity, or arbitrariness found in Trial Court’s discretionary orders refusing ex-parte reliefs – All appeals and writ application dismissed accordingly [Paras 14.2, 16.2].

Civil Law – Injunction - Right to Privacy – Unauthorized Recording in Private Space – Consent Required – Partial Relief Granted – Plaintiff had consented to being recorded during the live debate but not after she exited the debate frame – Court held that the recording of the additional 18 seconds after Plaintiff withdrew was done without consent, violating her privacy under Article 21 – Video segment barred from public circulation – Interim relief granted [Paras 19-20].  

Defamation – False Attribution in Quote Tweet – Partially Defamatory – Quote Tweet by Defendant No. 1 accusing Plaintiff of “chucking the mic” and “throwing out” cameraman held untrue and lacking factual basis – Such assertions not protected by the defence of truth and must be deleted – However, statement about “abusing” the cameraman held substantially true – Partial protection granted under fair comment [Paras 22.4-22.7].

 Doctrine of Clean Hands – Suppression of Plaintiff’s Tweets – Cost Imposed – Plaintiff failed to disclose two tweets forming part of the conversation thread relevant to the case – Court held this to be suppression of material facts – Plaintiff directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- in costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association [Paras 14, 28].  

Doctored Video Allegation – Not Substantiated – Plaintiff’s claim that the impugned video was doctored found to be unsubstantiated – Local Commissioner report found no conclusive evidence of tampering – Allegation held to be an afterthought [Para 24].  

Norms of Journalistic Conduct – Personal Comments Not Covered – Quote Tweet not a journalistic article but a personal comment of Defendant No. 1 – Norms of journalistic conduct not applicable to Defendant No. 1, but applicable to Defendants 6–10 who reposted and amplified the video without verification – Take-down orders confirmed against those defendants [Paras

23.2-23.4].

 Decision – Interim Injunction Partially Allowed – Video with post-debate 18second segment barred – Defendants 1 and 2 restrained from publishing or circulating impugned segment – Defendants 6 to 10 also directed to remove same – Some parts of tweet text to be retained while defamatory phrases to be taken down – Suit to proceed on merits [Paras 25-30].

Civil Law – Recovery - Promissory Note – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff Discharged Burden – Defendant Failed to Rebut – Suit Based on Two Promissory Notes – Plaintiff examined himself and proved original documents – Defendant, who alleged forgery, failed to enter witness box or produce any evidence – Burden to rebut shifted to defendant and remained undischarged – Findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld [Paras 15-18]. 
 
Execution of Document – Attestation Not Mandatory – Promissory Note Valid Without Witnesses – Court reiterated that promissory notes are not compulsorily attestable documents – Plaintiff’s oral testimony supported by original documents was sufficient – Presence of attesting witness not mandatory [Paras 15-16]. 
 
Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Limited Scope Under Section 100 CPC – No Interference in Concurrent Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated limited jurisdiction in second appeal – No interference warranted unless findings are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence – No such infirmity found in concurrent findings [Paras 14, 18]. 
 
Failure to Lead Evidence – Adverse Inference Against Defendant – Presumption Invoked – Defendant’s refusal to step into witness box or challenge order rejecting his IA under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for handwriting expert) led to adverse inference – Applied principle from Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 [Para 16]. 
 
Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Findings Upheld – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit – Costs to be borne by parties – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 19]. 
 

Labour Law - Industrial Dispute – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Tribunal’s Award Set Aside – The Industrial Tribunal’s finding that the petitioner-workman was illegally refused employment and entitled to full back wages was based solely on the workman’s written statement, without any evidentiary basis – High Court held that the tribunal erroneously presumed termination in absence of documentary proof – Award set aside [Paras 1820, 28]. 
 
Transfer of Workman – Employer's Right to Allocate Work – Refusal by Workman – Not Termination – 
Employer offered the workman alternative positions in active departments due to closure of Roving Department – Workman’s insistence on working only in Roving Department held to be an unjustified refusal – Tribunal's failure to appreciate this amounted to error of law [Paras 14-17, 23-26]. 
 
Procedural Fairness – No Trial on Merits – Matter Remanded – Tribunal treated the act of permitting rejoining as consent to all claims including back wages – High Court held this violated principles of natural justice and deprived employer of full hearing – Directed re-trial on merits [Paras 21-22, 27-28]. 
 
Industrial Tribunal – Duty to Record Evidence – Final Award Without Trial Invalid – High Court emphasized that dispute on abandonment vs. refusal to permit joining must be adjudicated through evidence and not assumption – Remanded for fresh disposal within six months [Paras 27-28]. 
 
Decision – Award Dated 29.01.2024 Set Aside – Writ Petitions Disposed – High Court set aside the tribunal award and directed adjudication of Case No. 16 of 2020 afresh, on merits, after recording evidence from both parties [Paras 28-29]. 
 

Civil Writ - Teacher Recruitment – Validity of Selection Advertisement – Supreme Court Binding Directions – Relief Denied - Petitioners sought a direction to commence the recruitment process as per the Advertisement dated 07.12.2012 – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (2018) had already moulded relief by permitting the State to issue a fresh advertisement for remaining vacancies, thereby rendering the continuation of the 07.12.2012 advertisement untenable – Held: Petitioners’ prayer directly contravenes Supreme Court directions and is rejected [Paras 4, 6-9].

Re-Evaluation of OMR Sheets – Allegation of Malpractice in TET 2011 – Barred by Final Judgment – Petitioners prayed for re-evaluation of OMR sheets and cancellation of candidature of those using whitener – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak upheld the appointments made, and rejected reopening settled issues – Held: Prayers barred and not maintainable [Paras 5, 10].

Frivolous Litigation – Imposition of Cost – Petitions Held to be Luxury Litigation – Court observed that despite knowing the finality of the Supreme Court judgment, petitioners filed repetitive and baseless writs wasting judicial time – Held: All 6402 petitioners to pay Rs. 100 each as cost to High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, with compliance directed through deponents/pairokars [Paras 11-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – All prayers found contrary to binding precedent and settled law – All writ petitions dismissed with cost [Para 11].

Consumer Law - Challenge to order of NCDRC – Refund for Delay in Possession – Flat Purchaser Entitled – State Commission Order Upheld – Petitioner Builder failed to deliver flat despite investment of ₹6.5 lakhs by Respondent in 2010-2011 – State Commission ordered refund with 9% interest and compensation – NCDRC rejected delayed appeal – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 3-7].

Delay Condonation – 1132-Day Delay Not Satisfactorily Explained – Condonation Denied – National Commission found petitioners’ justification (COVID, firm dissolution, health issues, settlement talks) unsubstantiated and casual – Held: Law of limitation requires reasonable, good-faith explanation – No interference warranted by High Court [Paras 8-20].

Consumer Status – Flat Purchaser is a Consumer – Challenge Baseless – Petitioner argued Respondent not a “consumer” under the Act – Rejected: Respondent paid for residential flat and falls within definition under Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act [Para 16].

Abuse of Process Allegation – No Evidence – Dismissed as Bald Assertion – Petitioner accused Respondent of fabricating receipts and abusing law – Held: Allegations baseless, unsupported by material – Can't substitute for legal grounds [Para 16].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Relief Without Clean Hands – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Petitioners failed to act diligently, adopted “wait and watch” approach till settlement failed – Attempt to defeat execution process – Held: Writ remedy cannot aid party lacking bona fides [Paras 20, 23-24].

Consumer Law – Beneficial Legislation – Delay Defeats Purpose – Emphasis on Expeditious Resolution – Referring to Alpha G Corp. and other SC cases, Court reiterated that delay thwarts consumer justice mechanism – High threshold for condonation reaffirmed [Paras 18-29].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – NCDRC acted within law, applied correct principles – Writ petition held misconceived and dismissed without costs [Paras 30-31].
 

Eviction Petition – NRI Landlord’s Right – Section 13-B of the 1949 Act – Eviction Upheld – An eviction petition was filed by an NRI landlord invoking Section 13-B for possession of premises required for personal use – The tenant sought condonation of delay in filing leave to defend, claiming lack of notice – Held: The NRI landlord had a statutory right under Section 13-B, subject to a five-year ownership and single-use limitation – Procedural safeguards under Section 18-A do not allow condonation of delay under Limitation Act – Delay could not be condoned – Eviction maintained [Paras 2, 4, 12-14].

Jurisdiction – Rent Controller Cannot Invoke Section 5 of Limitation Act – Special Statute Prevails – Court distinguished prior judgments permitting liberal construction – Reiterated that provisions under Sections 13-B and 18-A are self-contained and exclude application of general law of limitation – Held: In absence of valid service or exceptional cause, delay cannot be condoned [Paras 10–11].

Summons – Validity and Service – No Justification for Delay – Tenant claimed non-service of summons and miscommunication with counsel – Court found tenant was aware and represented, but failed to act within statutory time – Held: No sufficient cause for delay; statutory protection cannot be diluted on technical pleas [Para 6].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Eviction Order Sustained – High Court upheld Rent Controller’s order refusing condonation of delay and eviction of tenant – Held: Revision petition devoid of merit; dismissed with confirmation of vacant possession order in landlord’s favour [Paras 7–9].
 

Civil Writ - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Challenge to Declaration of Land as Slum Area – Absence of Title – Declaration Upheld – Petitioners claimed tribal status and ownership over land declared as slum area in 2016 – Relied on decades-old revenue records and Village Specimen No. 2 – Held: No valid document of title or order of allotment produced – Mere entries in revenue records insufficient to establish ownership – AGRC rightly held Petitioners as unauthorized occupants [Paras 34-49, 50-51].

Delay in Challenge – Eight-Year Delay – Slum Scheme Substantially Progressed – No Interference Warranted – Notification declaring slum area issued in 2016 – Petitioners approached Court and AGRC in 2024 – Meanwhile, 2255 out of 2313 slum structures demolished – Held: Delay defeats equity – Slum scheme too advanced to halt – Reliance placed on Apex Court decision in Mansur Ali Farida Irshad Ali [Paras 57-60].

Scope of Section 3C – Declaration of Slum Area Without Prior Declaration Under Section 4 – Legally

Permissible – Petitioners argued absence of declaration under Section 4 invalidated subsequent steps – Held: Section 3C is independent and not dependent on Section 4 – Supported by precedent in Santosh Tukaram Patil – AGRC decision sustained [Paras 52-53].

Implementation on Gairan Land – Mutation in Government Name – Slum Scheme Valid – Petitioners claimed land was Gairan and not legally available for redevelopment – Held: Mutation Entry No. 4598 records land in Government name – Gairan status no longer applicable – Notification and scheme valid – Cited Santosh Madhukar Bhondve and Jagpal Singh cases distinguished [Paras 54-56].

Eviction Proceedings – Validity of Eviction Orders under Sections 33 and 38 – Confirmed – Petitioners contended eviction orders violated their rights as alleged owners – Held: No ownership proved – Orders passed after due process and rightly upheld by AGRC – No interference required [Paras 61-64].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Implementation of Slum Scheme Not to Be Halted – Court finds no merit in Petitioners’ claim of ownership or challenge to slum declaration – Petitioners entitled to rehab tenements if eligible – Scheme implementation must proceed for benefit of majority slum dwellers [Para 65].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Execution and Validity of Agreements – Agreement Upheld – Plaintiff established execution of two agreements dated 17.02.2001 (Ex.P2 and Ex.P4) – Court held both agreements genuine, proving advance payment of Rs. 25,00,000, including a cash component of Rs. 22,30,000 – Defendant’s denial disbelieved due to signature admissions and consistent evidence – Held: Execution and terms of sale agreement proved [Paras 6.1–6.5]. 
 
Doctrine of Novation – Alleged Substitution of Agreement – No Novation Found – Defendants contended that Ex.P4 substituted Ex.P2 with reduced price – Court found Ex.P4 was created for stamp duty and tax avoidance without rescinding Ex.P2 – Held: Both agreements co-exist and must be read together – No novation established [Paras 7.1–7.3]. 
 
Obligations of Parties – Vendor Obligated to Obtain Land Conversion – Vendor Failed – Under agreement terms, vendor was required to secure conversion to non-agricultural use and IT clearances – Court held vendor failed to fulfill these essential obligations, while plaintiff demonstrated willingness and financial capacity – Held: Vendor breached primary obligations under contract [Paras 8–9.3]. 
 
Amendment of Written Statement – Rejection Justified – Trial court rejected Defendant 1’s belated application to amend WS to deny cheque and agreement – High Court upheld the order, finding the amendment lacked bonafide and amounted to retraction of earlier admissions – Held: No error in rejecting amendment [Paras 11.1–11.6]. 
 
Discretion for Specific Performance – Conduct of Defendant and Equity – Decree Granted – Despite amendment to Specific Relief Act being prospective, Court exercised discretion to grant specific performance – Defendant sold property during pendency of suit in violation of court’s status quo order – Held: Plaintiff entitled to specific performance due to vendor’s fraudulent and culpable conduct [Paras 12–13.2]. 
 
Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Transfer Pendente Lite Void Against Plaintiff – 2nd Defendant’s Title Not Protected – Court held that sale by Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 during suit was in violation of status quo order – 2nd Defendant, though a purchaser, could not retain the property against prior agreement – Held: Transfer void under Section 52 TPA – Plaintiff’s claim prevails [Paras 14.1–14.3].