Family Law – Appealability of Interim Custody and Visitation Orders – Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act – The appellant challenged an order passed by the Family Court granting the respondent temporary custody and visitation rights over the minor child, arguing that the order was not interlocutory and therefore appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act – Held: Orders regarding interim custody and visitation rights under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 significantly impact the welfare of the minor child and cannot be treated as mere procedural or interlocutory orders – Such orders have a direct bearing on the rights of the parties and are appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act – The decision in Colonel Ramesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, holding that no appeal lies against interim custody orders, was held incorrect [Paras 9-35].

Nature of Orders Under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act – Orders passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 grant temporary custody and can affect the child’s welfare and parents' rights – These are adjudicatory in nature and cannot be termed as interlocutory for the purposes of appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, which provides an overriding appellate remedy for family matters – Appeal allowed to proceed [Paras 26-30].

Principles of Finality in Interlocutory Orders – Distinction Between Procedural and Substantive Orders – The court emphasized that interlocutory orders for procedural matters are different from substantive orders affecting valuable rights – Orders impacting child custody and visitation fall within the category of substantive decisions that should be appealable, despite being interim in nature – Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania principles applied [Paras 29-34].

Decision: The reference to the Full Bench is answered in favor of the appellant – Orders under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 regarding interim custody and visitation are appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – The appeal is restored for consideration by the appropriate Bench [Paras 35-37].

Anticipatory Bail – Prima Facie Case – Applicability of Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act – The appellant, charged with offences under IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, sought anticipatory bail – Court held: The prosecution failed to prima facie establish the ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act – No satisfactory explanation was provided for the two-month delay in lodging the FIR, and the parties had prior enmity – Applying the principles from Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, the bar under Section 18 of the Act was not attracted, as no prima facie case was made out [Paras 6-10].

Delay in Filing FIR – Effect on Credibility – The delay of two months in lodging the FIR raised doubts about the credibility of the allegations – The incident took place within the confines of a private residence, and the lack of prompt action by the complainant further weakened the case against the appellant [Paras 8-9].

Principles of Anticipatory Bail – Mala Fide Allegations – Judicial Scrutiny – Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should be granted when the proposed accusation stems from ulterior motives – The appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail, given the absence of any material suggesting malafides or intention to flee from justice [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Criminal appeal allowed – The order dismissing the anticipatory bail was set aside – The appellant was granted anticipatory bail with conditions: to appear before the Investigating Officer and execute a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two solvent sureties [Paras 14-16].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Execution Proceedings – Joint Tenancy Rights – The appellant raised objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC against his dispossession in execution proceedings arising out of a decree passed against his brother, claiming independent rights based on a separate decree – Held: The appellant, being a joint tenant along with his brother, Prem Chandra, cannot claim independent rights to resist execution – The objections raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC were correctly dismissed by both the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court – The decree of eviction applies to all joint tenants [Paras 12-16].

Order 21 Rule 97 CPC – Objections to Execution by Non-Judgment Debtor – The court observed that objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC can be raised by non-parties to the original suit, but such objections must be based on valid, independent rights – In this case, the appellant's claim of independent tenancy rights was unfounded, as the joint tenancy had devolved upon him and his brother, making the eviction decree applicable to both – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10-12].

Effect of Non-Filing of Cross Objections – Finality of Findings – The appellant did not file cross-objections challenging the finding of joint tenancy in earlier proceedings – Held: Without cross-objections, the finality of the appellate court’s finding on joint tenancy rights cannot be disturbed, and the appellant is bound by the earlier judgment – Appeal lacks merit [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage – The judgment dated 07/05/2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 130/2013 is upheld, and the appellant is subject to the execution of the decree of eviction – No costs awarded [Para 17].

SARFAESI Act - Assignment of Overdraft Facility – Compliance with RBI Master Directions – Validity of Assignment – The appellants argued that their overdraft facility account was not a “Stressed Loan” as it had not been declared as a Special Mention Account (SMA) under the RBI’s Master Directions – Court held: Continuous breach of the sanctioned overdraft limit for 35 days (SMA-1) and 83 days (SMA-2) justified the classification of the account as a “Stressed Loan” and its assignment to the ARC was valid – No violation of Master Directions by the bank [Paras 8.2, 10, 13].

Remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act – Limited Scope – Applicability to ARC – The appellants contended that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would not provide them with an effective remedy, as it applies to "Secured Creditors" and not ARCs – Court held: The appellants had alternative remedies available under Section 17 once their account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) – The writ petition was correctly dismissed by the learned Single Judge [Paras 15-18].

Delay in Challenging the Assignment – Inaction of the Appellants – Despite being informed of the assignment on 2 April 2024, the appellants failed to take timely action – The appellants waited until September 2024 to file the writ petition, by which time the account had already been declared an NPA – Court found the appellants negligent and dismissed the appeal [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The assignment of the overdraft account to the ARC was valid, and the appellants were negligent in challenging the assignment and failed to act in a timely manner – Appellants are directed to seek remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act [Para 27].

Execution Proceedings – Resistance under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC – Joint Tenancy Rights – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC to resist execution of an eviction decree drawn in Original Suit No. 323 of 1977 against his brother, Prem Chandra. The appellant asserted independent rights under a separate decree in Original Suit No. 216 of 1996. Both the Executing Court and First Appellate Court rejected the objections, holding that the appellant had inherited joint tenancy rights along with Prem Chandra. The High Court upheld these findings, affirming that the appellant's claim did not override the joint tenancy rights established through the earlier decree – Held: The second appeal is dismissed, and the execution of the decree against the joint tenants is upheld [Paras 12-17].

Execution of Decree – Finality of Joint Tenancy Findings – Cross-Objections Not Filed – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant did not challenge the findings of joint tenancy rights in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2000 through cross-objections in Second Appeal No. 891 of 2002. The appellant’s failure to contest these findings prevents him from disputing the execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The Court noted that joint tenancy rights had devolved on all legal heirs, and no separate appeal or objections were raised by the appellant at the appropriate stage – Held: The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed [Paras 15-17].

Adjudication of Independent Rights under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC – Joint Tenants Bound by Eviction Decree – The Court emphasized that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC allow adjudication of independent claims in execution proceedings. However, since the appellant’s status as a joint tenant was previously determined, the eviction decree against his brother, Prem Chandra, applies to the appellant as well. Rejection of the appellant’s claim by the lower courts was upheld, confirming that he cannot avoid eviction based on his asserted independent decree – Held: The objections were rightly rejected by the lower courts, and the eviction decree is enforceable against all joint tenants [Paras 10-13].

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. The Court affirmed the execution of the decree against all joint tenants, including the appellant, finding no merit in the appellant's objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC [Paras 17].

Insolvency Law – Suspension of Resolution Professional – Failure in Duties – The petitioner, a Resolution Professional (RP) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of M/s. Transparent Energy System Pvt. Ltd., was suspended by the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI for one year for failing to exercise due diligence in verifying the Resolution Plan and non-intimation of a creditor’s (KCIL) claim – Held: The petitioner failed in his duty by not raising objections regarding the arbitration award comments in the Resolution Plan and did not communicate the precise admitted claim of KCIL – The Disciplinary Committee's action was justified based on NCLAT findings and the petitioner’s lack of challenge to those findings – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 9-15].

Principles of Natural Justice – No Violation in Disciplinary Proceedings – The petitioner did not raise any challenge to the compliance of natural justice in the proceedings, as he was given due notice, provided with all relevant materials, and granted an opportunity to be heard – Held: The impugned order was passed after full compliance with the principles of natural justice [Para 8].

Proportionality of Punishment – One-Year Suspension Not Disproportionate – The petitioner argued that the one-year suspension was disproportionate to his conduct – Held: The period of suspension falls within the Disciplinary Committee's jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the deficiencies noted were significant – The court found no reason to reduce the suspension period, as it did not shock the judicial conscience [Paras 17-21].

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed – The order of suspension dated 12th August 2024 is upheld – No continuation of interim protection granted to the petitioner [Paras 21-23].

Criminal Law – Application Under Section 91 CrPC – Timing of Application – Respondents sought production of request letters sent by CBI to the Ministry of Home Affairs for call interception before charges were framed – Held: The accused cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC at the pre-charge stage for production of documents – The Supreme Court has held that Section 91 can be invoked by the accused only after the stage of framing of charges and when necessary for defense – Petition allowed, orders directing production of documents set aside [Paras 1, 25-30].

Interception of Phone Calls – Privilege and Confidentiality – Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act – CBI asserted that its request letters for interception of calls were privileged communications under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act – Held: The CBI’s communications seeking permission for interception were confidential and privileged, and cannot be disclosed at the pre-charge stage – The respondents may apply for such documents at a later stage, subject to court review – Petition allowed [Paras 25-30].

Right to Privacy – Interception of Phone Calls – Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act – The respondents’ argument of privacy violation was rejected – Held: The interception orders were issued as per Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, and reviewed by the competent authority without adverse findings – The right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to lawful restrictions – No violation of privacy found [Paras 25-30].

Decision:

The petition is allowed – The impugned orders dated 20.12.2022 and 16.01.2023 are set aside – Respondents are at liberty to file an application under Section 91 CrPC at the appropriate stage – The CBI is directed to preserve the request letters/communications sent to MHA – No order as to costs [Paras 25-30].

Termination of Mid-Day Meal Implementing Agency – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner challenged the termination order dated 09.09.2024 issued by the 7th respondent, terminating the petitioner as the Mid-Day-Meal Implementing Agency without assigning any reasons or giving an opportunity of hearing – Court held: The termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given a show-cause notice or an opportunity to explain – The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue as the Mid-Day-Meal Implementing Agency unless a proper legal procedure, including issuing a show-cause notice and hearing the petitioner, is followed [Paras 2-4].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Be Heard – The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, noting that any order affecting the rights of an individual must follow due process, including giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard – Failure to do so amounts to a miscarriage of justice [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Writ petition disposed of – The termination order dated 09.09.2024 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to follow due process by issuing a show-cause notice and hearing the petitioner if they intend to proceed with the termination in the future – No order as to costs .

Labour Law – Termination of Services – Reinstatement with Full Back Wages – Section 25F of ID Act – Illegal Termination – The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages for the workman Manoj Kumar, who was engaged on an ad-hoc basis as a sweeper and terminated without following the proper procedure under Section 25F of the ID Act – Held: The termination violated Section 25F, but reinstatement is not automatic. The High Court set aside the reinstatement and instead awarded monetary compensation of ₹2,50,000 in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages [Paras 50-64].

Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Jurisprudence on Relief for Procedural Defects – While reinstatement generally follows a finding of illegal termination, courts have increasingly awarded monetary compensation where reinstatement is deemed inappropriate, especially for casual or ad-hoc workers – Manoj Kumar’s appointment as an ad-hoc worker and the violation of Section 25F warranted monetary compensation rather than reinstatement [Paras 53-64].

Regularization of Services – Non-Entitlement – The Labour Court denied regularization as Manoj Kumar was not appointed through due process, and there was no sanctioned post for the position – The High Court upheld this decision, citing that mere continuation in service for 1553 days does not confer a right to regularization under the principles laid out in Uma Devi – Further, there were no grounds to claim discrimination as the other regularized employees were either seniors or in different circumstances [Paras 65-93].

Decision:

The writ petition filed by Punjab National Bank is allowed – Reinstatement with full back wages set aside – Compensation of ₹2,50,000 awarded to the workman in lieu of reinstatement – The writ petition filed by the workman for regularization is dismissed.