Family Law – Maintenance for Children – Father's Obligation – Petitioner contested the Family Court’s order awarding monthly maintenance to his two daughters, arguing inability to pay and asserting that the court did not allow him sufficient opportunity to submit objections – Court held that as the daughters’ legal guardian, the father is obligated to provide for their maintenance and educational expenses, especially given that one daughter is a minor and the other, a non-earning adult – Held: Order upheld; father’s duty includes supporting daughters until marriage or self-sufficiency [Paras 8-12].

Procedural Fairness – Opportunity to Present Objections – Petitioner alleged lack of opportunity to file objections in the Family Court – Court found no procedural error, noting that sufficient time was provided to the petitioner, who failed to submit the required documents – Held: No violation of due process; Family Court’s order sustained [Paras 14-16].

Decision:

The revision petition is dismissed. The Family Court’s order is upheld, directing the petitioner to pay ₹6,000 per month to each daughter, plus ₹1,04,000 for educational expenses and ₹5,000 for litigation costs.

Anticipatory Bail - Offenses under Sections 120B, 406, 420 IPC and Trade Marks Act - Custodial Interrogation Not Required - The accused were charged with conspiracy, cheating, and breach of trust involving the development and delivery of software. The court found no necessity for custodial interrogation, considering that the first accused was already granted anticipatory bail. Petitioners were granted bail on the condition of cooperating with the investigation [Paras 5-8].

Conditions for Bail - Cooperation with Investigation Mandated - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioners to surrender for interrogation and cooperate with the investigation, including deemed custody for recovery purposes. Petitioners are to appear before the Investigating Officer as required and are prohibited from contacting witnesses or leaving India without court permission [Paras 9-10].

Civil Law – Second Appeal – Permanent Injunction – The appellant sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with possession of the disputed property – The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal – Held: Both the trial court and the first appellate court did not err in dismissing the suit as the appellant failed to identify and prove possession of the property on the ground – The appeal was dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Prove Possession – In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit – Held: The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as the exact location of the property, and was unable to identify the property on the ground when the Advocate Commissioner visited – The suit and appeal were rightly dismissed [Paras 10-20].

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Delayed Petition – The appellant filed a petition for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner after a delay of 12 years, claiming that the respondent had obstructed the survey – Held: The court rejected the application as the delay was unexplained, and the appellant had opportunities to appoint a commissioner earlier but failed to do so [Paras 21-30].

Decision: Second appeal and interlocutory applications dismissed – No costs awarded to either party.

Civil Procedure – Co-ownership – Suit for Possession – The appellants challenged the trial court's decree for possession of a portion of the suit property in favor of the respondent, who was a co-owner – The appellants contended that without a decree of partition, the suit for possession was not maintainable – The court held that in view of the oral settlement between the co-owners and the factual division of the property into two separate portions, a suit for possession was maintainable without a formal partition – The co-ownership was not denied, and the respondent's constructive possession was established through oral and documentary evidence [Paras 42-48].

Oral Settlement – Family Arrangement – The court recognized that an oral settlement between the co-owners concerning the division of property could be upheld if corroborated by evidence – In this case, the family arrangement dividing the property into two parts, with the respondent occupying one portion and the appellants the other, was proven through the testimony of witnesses and documents such as the lease deed – Held: The oral settlement is valid and enforceable, and no formal partition is required [Paras 45-53].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court upheld the trial court's judgment granting possession to the respondent – The appellants' argument regarding the requirement of a partition suit was rejected – The respondent was entitled to possession of the portion of the property and damages for wrongful occupation by the appellants [Paras 59-60].

Civil Procedure – Executability of Decree – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – The petitioner challenged the execution of an ex-parte decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, arguing that the suit value of ₹9,00,000 exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction of ₹5,00,000, rendering the decree null and void – Held: A decree passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is not inherently void but voidable, and objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial or appellate court – The objection cannot be raised in execution proceedings [Paras 13-14].

Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Waiver and Estoppel – The court noted that no objection to pecuniary jurisdiction was raised by the judgment debtor during the trial or in appeal, despite the transfer of the case from the Senior Division to the Junior Division – Failure to raise such an objection earlier precludes it from being raised during execution – The decree is valid and executable as no failure of justice occurred [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The trial court’s decision to proceed with execution is upheld, as the objection to pecuniary jurisdiction is not permissible in execution proceedings [Para 15].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonor of Cheque – Presumption of Liability – The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 8,00,000, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant provided evidence of the cheque, the dishonor memo, and service of legal notice, which the petitioner failed to rebut. Held: The presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies, and the petitioner failed to present a probable defense [Paras 7-10].

Legal Notice – Proper Service Established – The petitioner disputed the proper service of the legal notice but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The court found that the notice was served at the address mentioned by the petitioner, and the statutory requirements were satisfied [Paras 12-13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – The court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC is limited to supervisory review and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice. Held: No such miscarriage of justice was found, and the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts were upheld [Paras 17-19].

Decision:  The criminal revision petition is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of two years' imprisonment and compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are upheld. The petitioner is directed to surrender to serve the sentence, and the trial court is instructed to release any amount deposited by the petitioner to the respondent on filing the appropriate application [Paras 20-21].

Administrative Law – Suspension of Contractor’s Registration – Opportunity of Hearing Required – The petitioner challenged the suspension of his contractor registration with the MPPWD for a period of two years, arguing that no opportunity of hearing was provided before the suspension – Held: The suspension of registration for non-completion of work requires a separate show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing – The impugned order of suspension is unsustainable in law as no such opportunity was granted – Petition allowed, suspension order quashed [Paras 8-12].

Blacklisting or Suspension – Procedural Safeguards – Guidelines – The court referred to the Circular dated 24/03/2015 of the MPPWD and observed that before blacklisting or suspending a contractor’s registration, the competent authority must issue a show-cause notice and consider the seriousness of the alleged conduct – The procedural safeguards were not adhered to in the present case, rendering the suspension order void [Paras 9-12].

Debarment and Blacklisting – Harm to Public Interest and Contractor’s Rights – The court emphasized that blacklisting or suspension should only be invoked in serious cases affecting public interest and should not be readily imposed for ordinary breaches of contract where there is a bona fide dispute – Citing The Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2024), the court highlighted the severe consequences of debarment on a contractor’s ability to engage in future contracts [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed – The suspension order dated 03/02/2022 is quashed – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) – Eligibility for General Category – The petitioners argued that candidates from the EWS category who scored higher than the last candidate in the General Category should be considered for unreserved seats – Held: As per Article 16(6) of the Constitution, EWS reservation is distinct, and candidates selected under this category should not automatically be counted towards general seats – The Court ruled that the criteria outlined in the notification dated 30.10.2020 were correctly applied, requiring EWS candidates to fill EWS-designated seats, even if their scores exceeded those of General Category candidates [Paras 34-36, 39].

Principle of Reservation in EWS – Prospective Application of Policy Changes – Petitioners contended that the instructions of 30.10.2020 could not retroactively apply to the recruitment process initiated by Advertisement No. 2 dated 30.01.2020 – Held: The Court held that the State’s policy on EWS reservation applied prospectively and could be enforced in this instance, as it aligns with the broader intent to support EWS candidates through targeted reservation in designated seats [Paras 37-38].

Legal Precedent – Adjustment against Unreserved Vacancies – The Court upheld the principle that EWS candidates can only compete in the General Category if they are selected solely on merit, independent of any reservation – This principle aligns with Government directives that EWS candidates are not to be counted towards unreserved vacancies if they benefit from the EWS quota [Para 42].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding that the recruitment process complied with constitutional provisions and government notifications on EWS reservation – The petitioners' request to be considered under the General Category based on higher scores was denied, affirming the separation of EWS and General Category lists in merit-based recruitment [Paras 41, 42].
 

Bail under UAPA – Long Custody – Article 21 of the Constitution – The appellant has been in custody for over 2 years, 4 months, and 17 days. The appellant was nominated based on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, and despite serious allegations, no charges have been framed yet. Held: The appellant’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was being violated due to prolonged custody. The court emphasized that long custody without trial progress is grounds for bail under UAPA, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb and similar cases. Bail was granted, subject to conditions [Paras 6-8].

Serious Allegations Alone Not Sufficient to Deny Bail – The court referred to the principle that serious charges alone cannot justify the denial of bail if the accused’s prolonged incarceration infringes on their constitutional rights. The court highlighted that other co-accused had been granted bail and noted the lack of progress in the trial as a critical factor in granting the appellant bail [Paras 9-10].

Decision:

Bail Granted – The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant was released on regular bail subject to conditions, including furnishing a bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, surrendering his passport, and adhering to court dates. The court underscored that the observations made were limited to the bail appeal and did not affect the merits of the ongoing trial [Paras 12-14].