Writ Law - Compassionate Appointment - U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - Fair Price Shop Dealer - Petitioner daughter of deceased dealer applied for dealership on compassionate grounds claiming she resided with her father and fulfilled eligibility conditions - Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected application on 21.01.2026 solely on the ground that a married daughter does not fall within the definition of family under the 2016 Control Order and Government Order No. 6 of 2019 - Petitioner challenged the order as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 - High Court noted that the term adult children in Clause 2(p) encompasses both sons and daughters regardless of marital status - Court followed Supreme Court precedent in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. which held that married daughters cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment - Held - The exclusion of a married daughter who establishes dependency and satisfies other eligibility conditions is unconstitutional - Impugned order set aside - Matter remitted for fresh decision within two months - [Paras 1-16].

Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 15 - Gender-based Discrimination - State excluded married daughters from the definition of family while including unmarried or widowed daughters - High Court held that equality is antithetic to arbitrariness - Reasonable classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved - Purposive interpretation is required for welfare measures rather than a literal interpretation that leads to anomalous results - Held - Exclusion of a married daughter based on a gender-based stereotype is constitutionally impermissible and frustrates the purpose of providing financial relief to dependent family members - [Paras 11-14].

Writ Law - Definition of Family - U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - The expression daughter in the Control Order must be read to include a married daughter provided she establishes dependency on the deceased dealer and satisfies requirements of local residence and educational qualifications - A blanket exclusion based on the presumption that a married daughter cannot be a dependent is unjustified and factually untenable - Held - Married daughter is entitled to apply for appointment after the death of her parent subject to fulfillment of prescribed eligibility criteria - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 21.01.2026 set aside – Matter remitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, Pratapgarh to pass a fresh order in light of the Court's observations within two months.

Civil Law - Divorce - Cruelty - Admissibility of Electronic Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 14(3) - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65B - Petitioner-husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and sought to produce call recordings and documents such as medical records and travel tickets - Trial Court dismissed the applications citing absence of Section 65B certificates and breach of privacy - Petitioner contended that authenticity was verified by Truth Labs and relevance should be determined at final adjudication - High Court observed that recording conversations without consent of the other party constitutes a breach of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution - High Court further found that medical records and travel tickets produced actually indicated a cordial and successful marital life rather than cruelty - Held - The Trial Court was right in rejecting the applications as the recordings were inadmissible and other documents did not strengthen the case for divorce - Civil Revision Petitions dismissed - [Paras 1-18].

Evidence Law - Right to Privacy - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Unauthorized call recordings - Admissibility in matrimonial disputes - Petitioner sought to admit recordings of conversations with respondent-wife - Held - Recording calls without the consent of the other party constitutes a breach of privacy and the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 - In the absence of consent such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence - [Para 13].

Evidence Law - Admissibility - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65B - Electronic Records - Petitioner failed to produce required certification for call recordings and bank documents - Held - Section 65-B prescribes the mandatory mode of proof for contents of electronic records - Failure to satisfy statutory conditions renders electronic records inadmissible without production of the original - [Paras 5-6, 16].

Family Law - Cruelty - Proof and Relevancy - Petitioner produced evidence of pleasure trips and payments for wife - Held - Such documents pertain to the cordial marital life shared by parties - It is the husband's responsibility to incur expenses for the wife while leading a normal married life and such evidence does not support an allegation of cruelty - [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – The order of the Trial Court is affirmed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Appellants Premnarayan and Parmanand were convicted for the murder of Jamuna Prasad Patel - Prosecution case rested on the last seen theory and recovery of a 6-7 kg stone at the instance of accused - High Court found that the medical officer PW-16 did not provide a clear finding on whether the death was homicidal or accidental - Viscera report confirmed presence of ethyl alcohol suggesting intoxication - Evidence of wife PW-5 and son PW-8 of the deceased admitted no prior enmity - Seized stone and clothes of the accused had no blood stains - Field boundaries were 4-5 feet high making accidental fall plausible - Held - Circumstantial evidence failed to form a complete chain of guilt - Impugned judgment set aside and appellants acquitted - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Evidence Law - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Five golden principles - Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances excluding every other hypothesis of innocence - Suspicions however strong cannot replace proof - Deceased was intoxicated and might have fallen accidentally - No motive established - Held - Conviction cannot be based on surmises and conjectures - Reliance placed on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra - [Paras 8-10 16].

Evidence Law - Last Seen Together - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 7 - Appellants and deceased were neighboring farmers with fields and huts within 200 feet - Normal practice for farmers to stay in fields at night for irrigation - Merely being seen together in fields does not constitute a suspicious circumstance in rural context - Held - Last seen theory negated due to proximity of residences and lack of suspicious conduct - [Paras 10-13 16].

Decision: Both appeals allowed - Conviction and sentence under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC set aside - Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.

Civil Law - Real Estate Regulation - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 - Section 18 - Delayed Possession - Interest on Investment - Allottees booked apartment in Wintergreen project with possession due by February 2016 - Promoter failed to deliver possession by agreed date - Allottees filed complaint under Section 31 of RERA Act seeking interest for delay - MahaRERA initially allowed promoter to complete project first while granting liberty to allottees to claim interest later - Appellate Tribunal set aside this order and directed promoter to pay interest at SBI MCLR plus two percent from the original due date - Promoter contended that allottees accepted delayed performance and were disentitled from claiming compensation due to lack of notice under Section 55 of Indian Contract Act - Held - Section 18 of RERA Act is a beneficial provision conferring an unqualified absolute statutory right upon allottees to claim interest for every month of delay - continuation with the project constitutes acceptance of delayed performance but does not impact the unfettered right to claim interest - date specified in the agreement is sacrosanct - right to interest is not affected by non-issuance of notice of intention to claim compensation - [Paras 1-46].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 - Sections 18 and 89 - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 55 - Overriding Effect - Inconsistency between Special and General Law - Promoter argued that there is no conflict between RERA and Contract Act as RERA does not contemplate situations of accepted delayed performance - Held - RERA Act is a special enactment with retroactive operation intended to protect consumers - Section 89 of RERA Act provides it overriding effect over anything inconsistent in other laws - Section 55 of Contract Act lays fetters by making the right to compensation subject to notice - whereas Section 18 of RERA confers an absolute right unimpeded by conditions - inconsistency exists on the aspect of right to claim compensation - RERA being a special act prevails over the general provisions of Contract Act - [Paras 47-50].

Civil Law - Force Majeure - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 - Section 18 - Covid-19 Moratorium - Pandemic impact on performance - Promoter sought exclusion of six month period as moratorium for calculating interest based on RERA circular - Held - agreed date of possession was February 2016 which significantly preceded the Covid-19 pandemic - subsequent lockdown cannot come to the aid of a promoter to escape liability for interest where the default occurred prior to the pandemic - issue is settled by co-ordinate bench rulings and does not constitute a substantial question of law - [Paras 51-53].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Order of the Appellate Tribunal granting interest for delayed possession affirmed – Execution proceedings stayed for four weeks.

Writ Law - Octroi and Export Fee - Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act 1965 - Sections 108 and 322 - Constructive Res Judicata - Petitioner challenged the legality of octroi and export fee levied by Manmad Municipal Council on petroleum products stored at its Panewadi depot - Petitioner contended the depot was outside municipal jurisdiction and octroi was abolished by 1999 amendment - Record indicated petitioner had previously filed three successive Writ Petitions and a Review Petition on the same cause of action - WP 625 of 1999 was withdrawn with liberty - WP 5102 of 2005 was disposed of with directions to the Chief Officer - WP 8387 of 2006 was dismissed on merits by a Division Bench which upheld the nexus for charging export fee for road facility use - Review Petition 41 of 2008 was also rejected - Current petition sought to re-agitate the same grounds following coercive action for recovery of dues - Held - The current petition is not maintainable as it is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata - Adjudication in the earlier proceedings was conclusive and final - Petitioner cannot disregard the fact that the same cause of action was already agitated and rejected - Fresh petition on the same or similar grounds constitutes an abuse of the process of the court - [Paras 1-13 and 21-22].

Civil Law - Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 and Explanation IV - Applicability to Writ Petitions - High Court examined the applicability of res judicata to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The doctrine is based on public policy to ensure decisions of competent jurisdiction are final and individuals are not vexed twice with the same litigation - Explanation IV mandates that any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of attack or defence in a former suit shall be deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue - Constructive res judicata is a rule of fair play and justice intended to subdue a cantankerous litigant - Held - The principle applies with equal force to writ petitions where the same set of facts or cause of action has been previously determined - Adjudication is conclusive not only for actual matters determined but also for incidental matters that might have been litigated - [Paras 14-20].

Decision: Writ Petition rejected – Rule discharged – No costs – Liberty granted to the Municipal Council to withdraw any amount deposited by the petitioner in Court.

Civil Law - Real Estate - RERA Act 2016 - Section 18 - Delayed Possession - Appellant promoter challenged the Appellate Tribunal order directing payment of interest for delay in handing over possession of apartments in the Wintergreen project - Possession was contractually due by 30th June 2017 under a MOFA agreement - MahaRERA initially directed possession by December 2019 allowing allottees liberty to demand interest at an appropriate stage following their request for parity with a previous order - Allottees appealed and the Tribunal awarded interest from 1st July 2017 until actual possession - Promoter argued that allottees accepted delayed performance by making payments under revised schedules and failed to give notice of intention to claim compensation as required under Section 55 of the Contract Act - Held - Section 18 of RERA Act confers an unqualified absolute statutory right to interest for delayed possession - This right is sacrosanct and linked to the date specified in the agreement - It is not affected by contingencies outside the terms of the agreement or acceptance of delayed performance - The requirement of notice under Section 55 of the Contract Act cannot be read into the summary proceedings of Section 18 RERA - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-62].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - RERA Act 2016 - Section 89 - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 55 - Overriding Effect - Interplay between special and general law - Appellant contended that Section 55 of the Contract Act disentitles the promisee from compensation if delayed performance is accepted without notice - Court examined the inconsistency between the unqualified right in Section 18 RERA and the conditional right in Section 55 Contract Act - Held - RERA Act is a special enactment and Section 89 provides that it shall have overriding effect over anything inconsistent in other laws - Section 18 RERA gives an absolute right unimpeded by conditions whereas Section 55 Contract Act lays fetters on that right - The special law prevails over the general law - Promoter is obligated to pay interest from the date specified in the agreement even in the absence of notice by the allottee - [Paras 27-51].

Civil Law - Force Majeure - RERA Act 2016 - Section 18 - Covid-19 Pandemic - Moratorium benefit - Appellant sought to exclude the pandemic period from interest calculation - Possession was due in June 2017 and project completion date under RERA registration was 2019 - Held - As the date of performance was prior to the pandemic the subsequent Covid-19 lockdown cannot aid the promoter to escape liability for interest - Moratorium circulars do not apply where delay was pre-existing - [Paras 52-53].

Civil Law - Maintainability of Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96(3) - Estoppel - Concession on law - Appellant argued that allottees invited the original MahaRERA order by requesting parity and thus were precluded from appealing - Held - A plea of parity or a request for an identical order does not constitute an express waiver or abandonment of the right to interest - There is no estoppel against law - Advocate's submission on a question of law does not prevent an allottee from filing an appeal - For estoppel to operate there must be an express relinquishment of a benefit which was not present in this case - [Paras 54-61].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Appellate Tribunal order confirmed – Execution proceedings deferred for four weeks from 24th June 2026.

Writ Law - Police Transfer - Karnataka Police Act - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Tenure and Discipline - Petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector Law and Order at Yelawala Police Station on 30-06-2025 after Respondent No. 3 was suspended for dereliction of duty - High Court subsequently quashed the suspension of Respondent No. 3 in W.P.No.33384/2025 and directed reinstatement - Official respondents posted Respondent No. 3 back to Yelawala Police Station displacing the Petitioner - Petitioner challenged the transfer as premature before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) - KSAT upheld the transfer but directed Petitioner be accommodated in a vacant post at the same station - Petitioner challenged KSAT order and subsequent posting order dated 04-05-2026 - High Court noted that Respondent No. 3 suppressed material facts in previous proceedings regarding the Petitioner's seniority and posting - Court observed that members of a disciplined force are expected to work in a disciplined manner and not quarrel over specific postings - Held - Such conduct affects the larger public interest and the ability to maintain law and order - Both officers directed to be transferred out of Yelawala Police Station and Mysuru District - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Suppression of Facts - Conduct of Litigant - Respondent No. 3 failed to bring to the notice of the Court the posting of the Petitioner in his place while seeking reinstatement after suspension - Proper course was to implead the Petitioner - Held - A person who approaches the Court by suppressing material facts and failing to bring relevant facts to notice is not entitled to relief - [Paras 11-13].

Service Law - Transfer - Right to Posting - Karnataka Police Act - Tenure Protections - Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 both claimed right to continue at Yelawala Police Station based on tenure provisions - Held - No Government servant or official has a right to seek posting to a particular post or place - It is open for the Government to utilize services wherever needed subject to statutory provisions - If two Sub-Inspectors fight for a post they would not be in a position to maintain law and order - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Order of the Tribunal and the transfer order modified – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directed to post both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 out of Yelawala Police Station and out of Mysuru District within two weeks.

Writ Law - Willful Disobedience - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Sections 10 11 and 12 - Petitioner sought action against illegal G+1 construction - Court directed authorities to take steps in accordance with law and pass reasoned order within three months - 1st Respondent issued notices but was transferred - 4th Respondent assumed charge as Commissioner and passed an order on 09.03.2026 but failed to take it to its logical end or state steps taken for enforcement in the counter affidavit - Held - 1st Respondent not liable due to transfer - 4th Respondent liable for carelessness and willful failure to ensure effective compliance - [Paras 1-15].

Contempt Law - Mental Element - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Definition of willful - Disobedience must be knowingly intentional conscious calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences - Excludes casual accidental or bonafide acts or genuine inability - Held - Power to punish for contempt is intended to maintain an effective legal system and prevent perversion of the course of justice - [Paras 8-10].

Contempt Law - Standard of Proof - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 12 - Negligence as contempt - Power to punish has far reaching consequences and should be resorted to only when a clear case of willful disobedience is made out - If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous any disobedience amounts to contempt - Held - Misunderstanding or own interpretation of a clear court order is not a permissible defense - [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Contempt case allowed against the 4th respondent – 4th respondent directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 to the High Court Registry and Rs. 20,000 as costs to the petitioner – In default the contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

Civil Law - Closure of Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Sections 115 and 151 - Petitioners-plaintiffs challenged orders of Civil Judge Sr Division Dibrugarh debarring them from filing evidence-on-affidavit after multiple opportunities - Original suit filed in 2019 for declaration regarding sale deed - Trial court noted case pending at evidence stage since May 2023 with strict directions to file PWs - Plaintiffs failed to take steps and later filed Section 151 application citing change of counsel and personal hardships including age and health issues - High Court found that trial court had granted 11 adjournments between 2022 and 2024 - Petitioners failed to show any exceptional cause for delay - Held - Discretion to allow evidence after long delay needs to be exercised more strictly when there have been repeated adjournments - Allowing the petition would not serve the interests of justice and lead to prolonging the pendency of the 2019 suit - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-17].

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Dilatory tactics and Vigilance of Litigants - Petitioners sought to condone delay in filing evidence by shifting the burden of negligence onto their engaged counsel - Record established 11 prior adjournments granted by the trial court for filing evidence-on-affidavit - Held - Plaintiffs must be vigilant about their own cases and cannot shift the burden of negligence upon the shoulders of the engaged counsel - Arrears in the justice delivery system mount because of delay and dilatory tactics - Repeated adjournments shake the trust and confidence of litigants in the justice delivery system - Petitioners cannot be allowed to file evidence-on-affidavit as a matter of right at such a belated stage - [Paras 11-16].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned orders of the trial court closing plaintiff's evidence and fixing the case for arguments affirmed.