Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Grounds and Limitations – Petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that her husband (defendant No.2) was suffering from a serious mental disorder and could not be sued – Trial Court dismissed the application, stating that the plaint alone is to be considered for Order 7 Rule 11 applications, and any factual disputes must be determined at trial – Revision petition against this order also dismissed – Held, grounds under Order 7 Rule 11 are specific, including non-disclosure of cause of action and bar under any law – Medical condition of the defendant is a matter to be determined by evidence at trial, not at the stage of plaint rejection. [Paras 13, 17]

Judicial Interpretation - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Limited Scope – Court emphasized that only the plaint is to be examined to determine whether it discloses a cause of action or is barred by law – Genuineness of documents like medical certificates challenging mental condition are matters of evidence, not to be decided at the plaint rejection stage – Supreme Court precedents confirm that plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power meant to filter out suits without legal basis, not to adjudicate evidentiary disputes. [Paras 13, 15]

Case Law - Procedural Safeguards and Fair Trial – References made to Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra and I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal underscoring the need to examine the plaint in its entirety for a cause of action – Court reaffirmed that striking out pleadings or portions thereof under Order 7 Rule 11 should not be based on defenses or documents not part of the plaint – Ensures the defendant’s contentions and evidence are considered during the trial. [Paras 9, 11, 15]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Trial Court’s order upheld – Application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed as issues related to defendant’s mental condition and document genuineness are to be decided at trial – No interference warranted. [Paras 17-18]

Civil Procedure - Extension of Time for Filing Written Statement - Discretionary Power of Courts – Petitioners’ defense was struck off due to non-filing of the written statement within the prescribed period – Application for recalling the order was also dismissed – Court held that while Order 8 Rule 1 CPC prescribes an upper limit of 90 days to file a written statement, this provision is directory and not mandatory – Extension of time can be granted in exceptional circumstances with reasons recorded in writing – Striking off defense for delayed filing must consider the intent to facilitate a fair trial and just adjudication. [Paras 7, 12]

Judicial Discretion - Procedural Justice and Fair Hearing – Court noted that procedural provisions aim to expedite hearings and should not be applied to scuttle legitimate defenses – Discretion should be exercised to allow filings beyond 90 days in hard cases – Petitioners claimed they noted the hearing date incorrectly, which led to the delay – Court granted one effective opportunity to file the written statement, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial. [Paras 9, 11]

Case Law - Directory Nature of Procedural Provisions – Supreme Court precedents in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India and Kailash v. Nanhku reiterated that procedural rules, including time limits for filing pleadings, are generally directory – Courts retain the discretion to extend deadlines in justified cases – Amendments to CPC aimed to expedite trials but did not strip courts of their discretion to ensure justice. [Paras 7-8, 11-12]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Orders dated 12.09.2016 and 03.02.2017 set aside – Petitioners granted one effective opportunity to file their written statement within the next hearing date, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the respondents – Emphasis placed on balancing procedural compliance with ensuring substantive justice. [Paras 13, 16]

Service Law - Promotion Quotas Based on Qualifications – Petitioners, diploma holder Junior Engineers, challenged the separate promotion quota for Degree holder Junior Engineers to Sub Divisional Engineer posts – Held, Degree in Engineering is a higher qualification than a Diploma in Engineering – State Government’s policy to earmark a separate quota for Degree holders is justified to infuse better talent – Classification based on academic qualifications does not violate Articles 14 or 16(1) – Two unequals cannot be treated as equals. [Paras 9-10]

Judicial Precedents - Validity of Qualification-Based Promotion Criteria – Reference to P. Murugesan &Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu &Ors. which upheld similar classification – Court emphasized that diploma holders are not deprived of promotion, as a major share of promotional quota is still available to them – Validity of providing a separate quota for Degree holders affirmed. [Paras 7, 9]

Equal Opportunity and Merit in Promotions – Petitioners argued that all Junior Engineers form a homogenous class and should be treated equally for promotions – Court rejected this argument, stating that qualifications justify different treatment to ensure administrative efficiency and merit – Encouraging better-qualified individuals through separate quotas enhances service quality. [Paras 1-3, 9-11]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Separate quota for Degree holder Junior Engineers upheld – Court affirmed that treating two unequals (Degree and Diploma holders) as equals would be against principles of equality and merit. [Paras 12]

Constitutional Law - Right to Information - Privacy vs. Public Interest – Petitioner sought information under the RTI Act, which was denied on grounds of privacy invasion without public interest – Court held that information relating to third parties not involved in public activities or interests, causing unwarranted invasion of privacy, is not required to be disclosed unless justified by larger public interest – Petition dismissed. [Paras 11, 13]

RTI Act - Misuse and Abuse of Information Requests – Petitioner filed over 200 RTI applications and 250 complaints, allegedly as a histleblower – Court observed that the RTI Act should not be misused to harass individuals without genuine public interest – Emphasized the need to balance transparency with preventing abuse of the RTI mechanism – Petition dismissed for lack of legitimate grounds. [Paras 3, 6, 15-16]

Judicial Principles - Role of Information Commissions – Court underscored the responsibility of Information Commissions to ensure RTI requests do not harm public interests or obstruct government functioning – Reiterated the Supreme Court’s guidance on preventing misuse of the RTI Act – Confirmed that frivolous and excessive RTI applications can impede administrative efficiency and lead to wastage of resources. [Paras 6, 10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – RTI applications causing unwarranted invasion of privacy without public interest not mandated for disclosure – Emphasis on preventing misuse of RTI Act for harassment – Petitioner's grievances not substantiated by legitimate public interest. [Paras 12, 18]

Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Practicing Reiki – Husband alleged cruelty and desertion by wife due to her practice of Reiki – Wife contended she learned Reiki for peace of mind – Court held that merely learning Reiki does not constitute cruelty or desertion unless it is shown that the spouse has renounced the world – Petition dismissed as no evidence established that the wife’s practice of Reiki amounted to cruelty or desertion. [Paras 10-11]

Divorce - Allegations of Cruelty - Extra-Marital Relationship – Husband accused wife of cruelty through allegations of his extra-marital affair – Court noted that such allegations in a written statement or subsequent proceedings do not amount to cruelty unless made with the ulterior motive to tarnish the husband's image – Factual establishment of adultery does not constitute cruelty – The husband’s general allegations of cruelty and desertion were insufficient to warrant a divorce. [Paras 25, 29-30]

Divorce - Adultery - Evidence of Intimacy – Wife presented evidence including letters and photographs indicating husband’s intimacy with another woman – Husband admitted to writing a letter that suggested extra-marital intimacy – Court concluded that the wife’s allegations of adultery were true and well-founded – Impleading the alleged other woman was deemed unnecessary under the Hindu Marriage Act. [Paras 29-32]

Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Third Party in Divorce – No provision in the Hindu Marriage Act requires impleadment of a third party allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair for granting divorce – Impleading such a party was considered an empty formality given the evidence presented. [Para 32]

Condonation of Cruelty - Reunion Claims – Wife’s cross-objections claimed that the husband condoned cruelty by reuniting – Evidence of reunion insufficient to establish cohabitation after filing the divorce petition – Trial Court rightly rejected the application for dismissal based on alleged condonation of cruelty. [Paras 33-34]

Decision: Appeal and cross-objections dismissed – Trial Court's dismissal of divorce petition upheld – General allegations of cruelty and desertion not substantiated – Allegations of adultery found true but did not amount to cruelty under the circumstances – Condonation claims by the wife not supported by evidence. [Paras 35-36]

Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Tax Rules - Validity of Time Limits – Petitioner, a registered dealer under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, challenged Rule 20 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which mandates a 90-day time limit for claiming back ITC for goods sent for job work – Court held that Rule 20 is not ultra vires Section 13(3) of the Act – Reason for prescribing the time limit is to ensure that goods returned by job workers are the same as those sent for processing – Time limit facilitates easier verification by the Department. [Paras 14-15]

Tax Law - Directory vs. Mandatory Provisions – Court ruled that the 90-day period prescribed in Rule 20 is directory and not mandatory – Authorities should not consider themselves bound by a rigid time-frame – The period of 90 days is not confined to the same assessment year, and reasonable time must be assessed keeping in mind the scheme and purpose of the Act. [Paras 15, 17]

Evidentiary Requirements - Return of Goods After Processing – Taxable persons must produce proper evidence such as records, challans, or memos to prove receipt of goods after processing – ITC debited at the time of dispatch to job workers must be restored if goods are returned – Delay beyond 90 days can be condoned if it does not prejudice the Department's ability to ascertain the facts. [Paras 14, 19]

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Rule 20 upheld as valid but directory in nature – Impugned order of the Tribunal set aside – Matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with the judgment – All contentions on merits kept open. [Paras 20-21]

Constitutional Law - Tender Conditions - Judicial Interference – Petitioner engaged in the healthcare sector challenged the minimum turnover requirement of ₹200 crores stipulated in a tender by PGIMER – Held, it is the prerogative of the tendering authority to set eligibility criteria – Court to interfere only if conditions are arbitrary, irrational, or illegal – Turnover requirement not found arbitrary, irrational, or illegal – Petition dismissed. [Paras 8, 9]

Tender Law - Eligibility Criteria and Experience – Turnover of ₹200 crores per annum serves as an indicator of bidder's experience and capability – Ensures that only bidders with adequate market presence and capacity to perform the contract are eligible – Such criteria help maintain quality and reliability of supplies – Party inviting tenders best placed to set conditions ensuring fulfillment of contract requirements. [Paras 9, 10]

Public Procurement Policy - Compliance with MSME Guidelines – Petitioner sought writ mandating compliance with MSME Act and Public Procurement Policy – Court noted petitioner's ineligibility based on turnover criteria – MSME guidelines not rigid, provide flexibility based on specific procurement needs – Petitioner's products and financial standing insufficient under stipulated criteria – Policy intent to secure quality and timely procurement upheld. [Paras 3, 8, 16]

Judicial Review - Market Acceptability and Performance Assurance – Criteria such as high turnover ensure bidder’s market acceptability and reliability – Turnover serves as a proxy for bidder's financial stability and operational capability – Ensures due performance even for sensitive procurements like life-saving drugs – Court upheld tender condition as rational and in public interest. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision: Petition dismissed – PGIMER's tender conditions upheld – Petitioner's plea for relaxation of turnover criteria rejected – Court affirmed the tendering authority's right to set eligibility conditions based on procurement needs. [Paras 16-18]

Family Law - Interim Maintenance - Maintenance for Children under Section 24 – Petitioner challenged the order granting interim maintenance of ₹2000 per month to the wife and ₹2500 per month each to minor children – Marriage solemnized in 2008 with two children born from wedlock – Wife left matrimonial home in 2013 and filed application under Section 24 for interim maintenance – Trial Court granted maintenance – Held, although Section 24 does not explicitly mention child maintenance, the court can award it if the children reside with the applicant and are maintained by them – Revision allowed, matter remanded for reconsideration. [Paras 1-3, 9-10]

Judicial Discretion - Determining Maintenance – Court noted that the trial court must consider the means of the parties, social status, background, and economic dependency – The trial court's decision was found lacking in detailed consideration of these factors – Remanded for fresh consideration with instructions to evaluate all relevant factors. [Paras 13, 19-20]

Judicial Precedents - Supporting Child Maintenance under Section 24 – Cited Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun to support that Section 24 includes maintenance for children when the wife is maintaining them – Referred to the obligation under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act to support minor children – Affirmed the principle that the court’s discretion should be exercised judicially and in accordance with law. [Paras 11, 17-18]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 26.10.2015 set aside – Case remanded to trial court for reconsideration of interim maintenance after evaluating all relevant factors, including petitioner’s actual income and the needs of the respondent and children – Interim maintenance to be reassessed in accordance with legal principles discussed. [Paras 19-20]

Service Law - Promotion Post-Acquittal and Exoneration – Petitioner, previously reverted and placed under suspension with two disciplinary proceedings initiated, exonerated in one and punished in another – Acquitted in criminal case on 30.04.2016 – Held, cause of action for seniority, promotion, and re-fixation of pay arises from acquittal date – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner’s grievances regarding seniority and promotion on par with immediate junior in cadre. [Paras 1, 13]

Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus – Petitioner sought writs to quash previous orders rejecting representations for promotions and other service benefits – Reliefs include treating punishment period from 29.11.1989 and treating certain periods as ‘spent on duty’ – Court found no provision under disciplinary rules for retrospective penalty imposition – Petition allowed to reconsider seniority and promotion following acquittal. [Paras 1, 9-10, 12]

Judicial Review - Seniority and Promotion Rights Post-Acquittal – Examination of service particulars of petitioner’s immediate junior for determining eligibility for promotion – Court referenced Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman regarding salary and benefits post exoneration – Directed re-examination of petitioner’s service records for promotions on par with junior – Interest on withheld gratuity ordered. [Paras 13-15]

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Orders rejecting representations quashed – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner’s seniority and promotion with respect to immediate junior and provide service/monetary benefits if eligible – Interest on gratuity to be paid at 6% per annum from 1.12.2008 till payment, excluding reasonable period of three months from retirement. [Paras 15-18]