Service Law – Promotion – Relaxation of Qualification – Seniority in Feeder Cadre – Petitioner and private respondents promoted as Section Officers – Educational qualification of graduation relaxed in favour of respondents by Hon’ble Chief Justice under Rule 6 – Upon regularisation, seniority fixed on basis of inter se seniority in lower cadre and not educational qualification – Held: Relaxation of qualification was lawful and once granted, respondents could not be treated differently – Seniority correctly determined – No right accrued to petitioner to supersede seniors merely on basis of qualification [Paras 7, 12–14].

Service Cadre – Acceptance of Promotion – Estoppel Against Change of Cadre – Petitioner promoted as Reader (equivalent grade to Assistant Registrar-II) and accepted appointment without protest – Later sought redesignation as Assistant Registrar-II and consequential promotions on ground of better promotional avenues – Held: Employee cannot seek change of cadre at his sweet will after accepting promotion – Having derived benefit of post of Reader, petitioner estopped from claiming retrospective placement in different cadre – Administrative authority justified in rejecting request [Paras 10–15].

Retrospective Promotion – Challenge to Promotion of Seniors – Only one vacancy of Assistant Registrar-II available – Same offered to senior-most Section Officer – Petitioner neither challenged promotion at relevant time nor succeeded in earlier representations – Subsequent grievance arose only when respondents secured further promotion – Held: No arbitrariness or illegality in promoting seniors in relaxation of qualification already granted – Petition devoid of merit [Paras 9, 13–14].

Reader Post – Qualification of LLB – Earlier litigation held LLB as minimum qualification for Reader and directed remedial measures – However, appointments not quashed – Petitioner allowed to continue as Reader till superannuation – Held: No consequential right accrued to seek redesignation as Assistant Registrar-II merely because of observations in earlier judgment [Paras 2, 11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No merit in claim for retrospective appointment as Assistant Registrar-II or for consequential promotion and seniority – Order speaking and reportable.

Public Procurement – GeM Tender – One Bid Per Bidder Clause – Common Independent Director – Petitioner disqualified as one Independent Director was common in petitioner-company and another bidder – Held: Term “Director” in Clause 29 does not include “Independent Director” – Independent Director occupies distinct statutory position under Companies Act, 2013 – Disqualification unsustainable [Paras 23–27].

Companies Act, 2013 – Independent Director – Distinct Statutory Framework – Sections 2(47), 149(6), 149(12) provide special qualifications, independence criteria and limited liability – Independent Director neither involved in day-to-day management nor holds pecuniary interest – Cannot be equated with Managing/Whole-time/Executive Director [Paras 13–17, 21].

Vicarious Liability – Role-Based Responsibility – Supreme Court precedents (SMS Pharmaceuticals; National Small Industries; Sunita Palita; K.S. Mehta) reiterate that liability depends on role in conduct of business, not designation alone – Independent/Non-executive Directors not liable absent specific involvement – Reinforces distinction for interpreting procurement clauses [Paras 18–20].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Harmonious Construction – Clause 29 of GeM GTC to be read with Clause 24 (Allied Firms) – Object is to prevent multiple bids by entities under common control/management – Independent Director without shareholding or managerial control does not constitute “common management” or “majority interest” [Paras 24–26].

Procurement Law – Object of “One Bid per Bidder” – Intended to prevent cartelisation or multiple bids by related concerns under effective control – Mere presence of common Independent Director without controlling interest does not attract disqualification [Paras 23, 26].

Clarification by Department of Expenditure – Term “Independent Director” not mentioned in definition of Allied Firms – No authoritative inclusion of Independent Director within scope of “Director” for such purpose – Court proceeds on statutory scheme of Companies Act [Paras 10–11].

GeM Portal – Role as Intermediary – Respondent No.2 (GeM) acts as neutral digital platform – Procuring entity solely responsible for bid evaluation and disqualification – No substantive role in impugned action [Paras 9.2–9.4].

Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Where disqualification based on erroneous interpretation of tender clause contrary to statutory framework, writ court justified in interference [Paras 27–28].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned technical disqualification communications dated 12.12.2025 quashed and set aside – Respondent No.1 directed to consider petitioner’s bids along with other bidders in accordance with tender conditions – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Supurdnama of Seized Vehicle – Owner-cum-Driver Accused – Joint Possession of Contraband – Refusal of Interim Custody Justified – Applicant sought interim release of Pick-up vehicle seized in Crime No.397/2025 registered under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act – Vehicle registered in applicant’s name and contraband (18 kg 600 gms ganja) recovered from joint possession of applicant and co-accused – Applicant arrayed as accused and also driver of vehicle – Held: Case falls within first/second category of seizure where owner/driver is accused – Vehicle cannot be released till reverse burden is discharged – Order rejecting Supurdnama not perverse [Paras 9–12, 16–19].

Supreme Court Guidelines – Bishwajit Dey / Denash Case – No Straight-Jacket Formula – Facts Distinguishable – Supreme Court held that release of vehicle depends on factual matrix and is not automatic – In Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, vehicle released as owner was not accused and contraband carried without owner’s knowledge along with lawful cargo – In present case, owner himself was driving vehicle and no other lawful cargo was being carried – Held: Benefit of Denash judgment not applicable [Paras 13–17].

Section 451 CrPC – Discretion of Trial Court – Limited Scope of Revisional Interference – Interim custody of seized property is discretionary – Revisional Court will interfere only if order is arbitrary or perverse – Trial court considered nature of offence, role of accused and seizure circumstances – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference [Paras 8, 19].

NDPS Offences – Reverse Burden of Proof – Impact on Release of Conveyance – Where owner is directly involved in transportation of contraband, presumption under NDPS Act operates – Vehicle forms part of offence and may be liable for confiscation – Held: Release at interim stage would defeat statutory scheme [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 31.12.2025 rejecting Supurdnama application affirmed – No interference warranted.

Gangster Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Solitary Base Case – Validity of Gang Chart – Application under Section 528 BNSS filed seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act, including charge-sheet and cognizance order – Applicant contended that initiation of Gangster Act proceedings on the basis of a solitary case was impermissible and contrary to the Gangster Rules, 2021 – Held: In view of Rule 22 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 and law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of a single case – No illegality found on this ground [Paras 4, 10, 28–29].

Gang Chart – Compliance with Rule 5(3) – Joint Meeting and Satisfaction of Authorities – Challenge raised on the ground that gang chart was approved without due discussion and joint meeting – Court found that gang chart was prepared and approved on 21.09.2024 after completion of investigation of the base case and after a joint meeting – Satisfaction of forwarding and approving authorities recorded in their own handwriting – Held: Requirements of Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 16 duly complied with – Case distinguishable from Sanni Mishra, Mohd. Arif @ Guddu and Vinod Bihari Lal [Paras 7–9, 13, 18].

Rule 5(3)(c) – Completion of Investigation of Base Case – Applicant contended that gang chart was approved prior to completion of investigation of the base case – Court noted that charge-sheet in the base case was prepared on 20.09.2024 and gang chart was prepared on 21.09.2024 – Held: Statutory requirement that investigation must be completed prior to approval of gang chart was fully satisfied – No violation of Rule 5(3)(c) [Paras 3, 8, 21].

Rule 8(2) – Allegation of False or Unconfirmed Information – Submission that unverified and false information was entered in the gang chart – Applicant failed to point out any specific false entry – Court held that status of base case and relevant particulars were correctly mentioned – No violation of Rule 8(2) established [Paras 9, 16, 26].

Rule 10 – Requirement of Certified Copy of Charge-Sheet – Argument that certified copy of charge-sheet was not annexed with the gang chart – Court relying on Ambuj Parag Dubey and Narendra Kumar held that Rule 10 does not require a certified copy issued by the court – Copy of charge-sheet prepared and certified by the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation is sufficient – Held: No violation of Rule 10(1) [Paras 9, 21–25].

Rule 16 & Rule 17 – Independent Application of Mind – Applicant alleged mechanical approval of gang chart – Court found that authorities recorded satisfaction independently and not by signing a pre-printed proforma – Held: Mandatory requirement of independent application of mind under Rules 16 and 17 complied with [Paras 13, 18, 29].

Scope of Interference under Section 528 BNSS – Court reiterated that at the stage of quashing, it cannot undertake a roving enquiry into sufficiency of evidence – Once statutory procedure under the Gangster Act and Rules is followed, proceedings cannot be quashed merely on technical objections – Application held devoid of merit [Paras 11, 29–30].

Decision: Application dismissed – Proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act upheld – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Loan Recovery Dispute – Public Servant Acting in Official Capacity – FIR and charge-sheet alleged house trespass, criminal force, insult to modesty and intimidation against senior official of West Bengal Financial Corporation during visit for loan recovery – Materials revealed visit was pursuant to official duty for recovery of substantial public dues – Complaint lodged to stall recovery proceedings – Held: Continuation of prosecution would amount to gross abuse of process of law [Paras 16–21].

Section 354 IPC – Outraging Modesty – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Prima Facie Case – To attract Section 354 IPC, criminal force must be applied with intent to outrage modesty – Allegations did not disclose conduct capable of shocking sense of decency of a woman – No material to infer requisite mens rea – Held: Offence under Section 354 IPC not made out [Paras 14, 16].

Delay in Investigation – Inordinate and Unexplained – Effect on Prosecution – Charge-sheet filed nearly four years after FIR – Case diary silent on investigation progress for long periods – Investigating Officer failed to wait for or consider official reply and did not seek further investigation – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without considering unexplained delay – Held: Procedural lapses vitiate prosecution [Paras 12–13, 17].

Section 161 & 164 CrPC – Defective Investigation – Non-recording of Crucial Statements – Statements of witnesses recorded twice without explanation – Statement of de facto complainant under Section 164 CrPC not recorded despite long delay – Investigating Officer ignored material documents and official correspondence – Held: Investigation conducted in perfunctory and mechanical manner [Paras 4, 7, 12, 17].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Preventing Harassment and Vexatious Prosecution – High Court empowered to look beyond allegations and examine attending circumstances – Where prosecution is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive, proceedings deserve to be quashed – Held: Case squarely falls within parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and L. Muniswamy [Paras 13, 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Charge-sheet and criminal proceedings pending before the 5th Judicial Magistrate, Howrah quashed – No order as to costs.

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Concurrent Findings – Article 227 Jurisdiction – Tenant challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by Rent Court (RLTOP No. 402 of 2020) and confirmed by Rent Tribunal (RLTA No. 52 of 2025) – Defence raised that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and that landlord’s claim as legatee/foster son under unprobated Will was unsustainable – Held: Identical defence already rejected by Court in connected revisions relating to same premises – No ground to interfere under Article 227 – Revision dismissed [Paras 2–3, 7].

Jural Relationship – Challenge by Tenant – Tenant questioned locus of landlord on ground that Will remained unprobated and landlord was not sole legal heir – Court declined to re-examine issue in view of earlier decision in connected matters confirming landlord’s entitlement to maintain eviction proceedings [Paras 2–3, 7].

Arrears of Rent – Distress Proceedings – Tenant admittedly in arrears of Rs.2,62,300/- representing 43 months’ rent @ Rs.6,100/- per month – Earlier distress application allowed and partial payment made – Continued default noted by Court while considering grant of time [Paras 5–6].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Though revision dismissed, considering that petitioner was carrying on non-residential jewellery business, Court granted time till 30.06.2026 to vacate, subject to conditions: filing affidavit of undertaking, clearing arrears within stipulated time, and not inducting third parties [Para 7].

Conditional Order – Modification on Mention – On mention, Court recorded payment of Rs.62,300/- and permitted balance Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid in four equal monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- each in March, April, May and June 2026 – Directed regular monthly rent from January 2026 to be paid in advance on or before 10th of every month [Order dated 05.02.2026, Paras 3–5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – In absence of perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent eviction orders, High Court declined to interfere under Article 227, granting only equitable time to vacate [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Time granted to vacate premises on or before 30.06.2026 subject to conditions regarding affidavit of undertaking, payment of arrears and regular payment of rent – Subsequent order permitting instalment payment of arrears – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Court reiterated that while considering an application for rejection of plaint, it must confine itself strictly to the averments in the plaint and documents relied upon therein – Test is whether on a plain and meaningful reading, the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendant seeking rejection – Plaint can be rejected partially against some defendants while surviving against others [Paras 1, 14, 18(A), 18(G)].

Company Law – Directors – Personal Liability – Separate Corporate Personality – Mere designation as director or nominee director does not ipso facto render a director personally liable for acts or contractual obligations of the company – In absence of pleadings showing personal role, benefit, statutory liability, or grounds for lifting the corporate veil, no cause of action lies against directors [Paras 11, 12, 18(D), 18(E)].

Pleadings – Omnibus Allegations – Use of Generic Expression “Defendants” – Plaint making sweeping and omnibus allegations without attributing specific acts, omissions, or roles to individual defendants held insufficient – Use of generic expression “the Defendants” without individualized pleadings fails to disclose cause of action against directors [Paras 10, 18(B)].

Fraud and Collusion – Pleading Requirements – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Allegations of fraud, collusion, or conspiracy must be pleaded with material particulars – Bald and vague allegations without specific particulars do not meet statutory pleading standards and cannot sustain impleadment of directors [Paras 10, 18(E)].

Order VII Rule 11 – Scope of Enquiry – Affidavit in Reply Irrelevant – Plaintiff cannot rely on averments in affidavit-in-reply to cure defects in plaint – Cause of action must be disclosed in the plaint itself – Material outside the plaint cannot be considered while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 13, 17, 18(F)].

Nominee Directors – Impleadment Without Averments – Nominee directors impleaded solely on basis of designation without any pleaded involvement or wrongdoing – Held that plaint was entirely bereft of any allegation against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Plaint rejected as against them [Paras 3–9, 16, 18(B), 18(C)].

Decision: All Notices of Motion allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Suit to proceed only against remaining defendants – Consequential Notice of Motion disposed of as infructuous [Paras 19–20].

Service Tax – Legal Services by Advocate – Exemption – Individual advocate rendered legal services to partnership firm of advocates – Order-in-Original confirmed service tax demand on alleged mismatch between ITR and ST-3 returns – Held, in view of Notification No.25/2012-ST and Notification No.30/2012-ST, services provided by individual advocate to another advocate or firm of advocates exempt / taxable under reverse charge with Nil liability on service provider – Levy on individual advocate without jurisdiction – Impugned order quashed [Paras 7-8].

Jurisdictional Error – Binding Notifications Ignored – Designated Officer failed to consider statutory notifications exempting legal services by advocates – Action contrary to binding exemption notifications – Proceedings held to be without jurisdiction – No remand necessary [Paras 7, 9].

Recovery Proceedings – Section 87 Finance Act – Bank Account Lien – Recovery notice issued and lien created on petitioner’s bank accounts pursuant to invalid demand – Consequential recovery action liable to be set aside upon quashing of demand order [Paras 3-4, 9].

Natural Justice – Non-service of Show Cause Notice – SCN and hearing notices sent to old address – Petitioner unaware of proceedings – However, petition allowed on foundational jurisdictional issue of non-leviability – Court did not deem remand necessary in light of clear legal position [Paras 4-5, 7].

Precedent – Advocate Pooja Patil v. Deputy Commissioner, CGST – Similar levy on individual advocate set aside – Present case squarely covered by said decision – Notifications dated 20.06.2012 clearly exempt legal services provided by individual advocate to firm of advocates – Petition allowed [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order-in-Original dated 15.03.2023, Recovery Notice dated 31.10.2025 and Show Cause Notice dated 27.10.2021 quashed and set aside – No costs.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Section 187(2) BNSS – NDPS Offence – Accused arrested on 07.05.2025 – Statutory period of 180 days for filing challan – Prosecution sought extension before expiry – Extension granted without presence of accused – Held, extension order passed in absence of accused vitiated – Accused entitled to default bail [Paras 5, 7-9].

Extension of Time – Right to be Heard – Presence of Accused – When Court considers application for extension of time to file challan, accused must be produced physically or virtually – Failure to ensure presence and opportunity to oppose extension amounts to gross illegality – Not a mere procedural irregularity – Violative of Article 21 [Paras 6-8].

Indefeasible Right to Default Bail – Scope – Right accrues on expiry of statutory period if no valid extension granted – Grant of extension without complying with procedural safeguards deprives accused of constitutional protection – Order granting extension without recording presence/submissions of accused unsustainable [Paras 5-8].

Article 21 – Fair Procedure – Deprivation of personal liberty must follow fair and reasonable procedure – Extension of time directly affects right to default bail – Non-production of accused while granting extension infringes fundamental right under Article 21 [Paras 6-7].

NDPS Act – Seriousness of Offence – Gravity of offence cannot override statutory and constitutional safeguards relating to default bail – Compliance with mandatory procedure essential [Paras 4, 7].

Decision: Impugned order dated 04.11.2025 quashed qua petitioners – Petitioners directed to be released on default bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of trial Court – Clarified that observations shall not affect merits of the case – Petition disposed of.