Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Revenue Records – Plaintiff relied primarily on kist receipts (Exs.A3 to A15) and mutation entries to establish ancestral title – Patta and chitta not produced – No proof of alleged partitions between plaintiff’s father and uncle or between plaintiff and his brothers – Courts below decreed suit mainly on failure of defendants to prove title – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must independently prove his title by clear and cogent evidence and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Revenue records and kist receipts do not confer title – Findings of Courts below held perverse and contrary to settled law [Paras 34–37, 42–45, 50(i), (iv)].

Ex Parte Decree – Restitution – Retention of Benefit – Plaintiff obtained ex parte decree and took delivery in execution on 25.01.1985 – Ex parte decree set aside on 20.03.1991 – Courts below granted injunction relying heavily on delivery taken pursuant to ex parte decree – Held: Once ex parte decree is set aside, parties are restored to original position – Plaintiff cannot retain benefit obtained under decree which ceases to exist – Section 144 CPC embodies principle of restitution ex debito justitiae – Reliance on delivery pursuant to nullified decree held erroneous and perverse [Paras 32–33, 50(iii)].

Delivery of Possession – Presumption of Official Acts – Plea of Paper Delivery – Court officer’s report of delivery attracts presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act that official acts are regularly performed – Such presumption rebuttable only by specific plea of fraud complying with Order VI Rule 4 CPC – No such plea raised by defendants – Plea of paper delivery rejected – However, benefit of delivery lost upon setting aside of ex parte decree [Paras 28–29].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings – Interference Permissible – Though High Court ordinarily does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, ignore material evidence, or proceed on fundamental errors of law – Present case falls within such exceptions [Paras 26–27].

Transfer of Property – Better Title – Nemo Dat Principle – Defendant relied on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2/Ex.B3 to claim title through Sanjeeviraya Reddy – Parent deed (Ex.B1) did not cover suit survey numbers – Will not proved in accordance with law – Held: One cannot transfer better title than one possesses – Defendant also failed to establish better title – Neither party proved exclusive title – Plaintiff left to seek partition if so advised [Paras 46–48, 49].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court in OS.No.575 of 1983 dated 30.06.1994 and First Appellate Court in AS.No.71 of 1994 dated 13.11.1998 set aside – Suit dismissed – Trial Court directed to ensure re-delivery of property to third defendant in view of setting aside of ex parte decree – Liberty reserved to plaintiff to file properly framed suit for partition – No order as to costs [Paras 50–51].

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.

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].

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.

Rent Control – Shop-cum-Flat (SCF) – Change of User – Residential Portion used for Commercial Tailoring Activity – Tenant initially inducted in ground floor portion for commercial purpose – Subsequently shifted to first and second floor (residential portion) for store purpose – Tenant running tailoring business from residential portion without permission – Held: Use of residential portion for commercial activity without permission of Rent Controller violates Section 11 of the 1949 Act – Eviction justified [Paras 18, 20, 25].

Chandigarh – SCF – Nature of Building – Reference to Division Bench – Question whether entire SCF to be treated as commercial – Division Bench answered that SCF in Chandigarh is a non-residential building in view of 1982 Amendment and law laid down in Rakesh Vij – Ejectment permissible on bona fide ground in both residential and non-residential buildings – Issue settled against tenant [Paras 2, 3, 17].

Misuse Notices – Estate Office Proceedings – Show cause notices issued by Estate Officer for misuse of SCF contrary to allotment terms – Property allotted as Shop-cum-Flat (shop at ground floor and flat at upper floors) – No conversion obtained – Held: Landlord cannot be made to suffer for tenant’s misuse – Misuse supports ground of eviction [Paras 19, 20].

Appellate Authority – Appreciation of Evidence – Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition for want of proof of misuse – Appellate Authority reappreciated evidence and found change of user established – High Court in revision found no illegality or perversity warranting interference – Order of eviction upheld [Paras 10, 18, 25].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments relied upon by tenant distinguished on facts – Judgment in Nand Kishore v. Yashpal Singh supports eviction where residential premises used for commercial purpose – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 22–24, 25].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Order dated 24.11.2015 of Appellate Authority upheld – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Paras 25, 26].

Environmental Law – Fly Ash Pollution – Construction of National Highway – Alleged damage to crops, ponds and groundwater – Environmental degradation affecting air and water bodies – Petitioners alleged indiscriminate dumping of fly ash during construction of NH-49 without safeguards – Fly ash washed into farmlands, ponds and village roads causing pollution and damage to agriculture and pisciculture – Held: Issues raised are serious environmental concerns requiring expert adjudication [Paras 3–5].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Alternative Statutory Remedy – National Green Tribunal – Rule of discretion and not compulsion – Availability of specialized forum under NGT Act does not oust jurisdiction of High Court – However, writ court may refuse to entertain petition where effective statutory remedy exists – Held: Self-imposed restraint warranted where dispute falls squarely within jurisdiction of NGT [Paras 2, 9–10].

National Green Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Sections 14 and 22 – No absolute ouster of High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 – High Court’s power of judicial review and superintendence forms part of basic structure – Remedy under Article 226 remains intact despite statutory appeal to Supreme Court under Section 22 of NGT Act – Held: Jurisdiction preserved but to be exercised sparingly [Paras 6–7, 9].

Environmental Disputes – Specialized Tribunal – Need for technical expertise – Environmental issues relating to air and water pollution require scientific and technical evaluation – NGT constituted with expert members to address such disputes effectively – Held: Matters concerning fly ash pollution during highway construction can be conveniently and appropriately adjudicated by NGT [Paras 5, 10].

Precedents – Judicial Review vis-à-vis NGT – Limits of Tribunal’s power – NGT does not possess general power of judicial review akin to Article 226 – Appeal being creature of statute, jurisdiction of NGT confined to matters expressly provided – High Court retains constitutional oversight [Paras 6–8].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of – High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction – Petitioners relegated to approach the National Green Tribunal – Liberty granted to raise all grievances and seek appropriate reliefs before NGT.

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.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 69 – Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage – Accused married man allegedly concealed marital status and induced victim through social media – Repeated sexual relations resulting in pregnancy – Allegation of deceit from inception – Held: Prima facie ingredients of Section 69 BNS disclosed – Whether victim knew about marital status is matter of trial – Proceedings cannot be quashed at threshold [Paras 11, 13, 17].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Promise to Marry – Distinction between false promise made without intention to fulfil and breach of promise made in good faith – Court reiterates principle laid down in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar – Allegation that accused, being already married, knew promise to marry could not be fulfilled – Prima facie case of deceitful means made out – Issue of voluntariness of consent to be examined during trial [Paras 13, 17].

Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Inherent Jurisdiction – Quashing of Charge-sheet – Power to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases – At stage of quashing, Court only to see prima facie material and not conduct mini trial – Where FIR, statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and medical record disclose commission of cognizable offences – Interference not warranted – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal and other precedents [Paras 10, 18].

Criminal Intimidation and Hurt – Co-accused – Allegations of threats, pressure for compromise and intimidation by wife, sister and brother-in-law of main accused – Specific allegations present in FIR and statements – Matter requires evidence – Proceedings against co-accused also not liable to be quashed at this stage [Paras 2, 11.7, 17].

Distinguishing Precedents – Judgments in Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Mahesh Damu Khare and Uday held inapplicable on facts – Present case involves allegation of deceit from inception by married accused and repeated exploitation – Factual matrix materially different [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025, summoning order dated 26.08.2025 and proceedings of Case No. 554 of 2025 (State v. Vipin Kumar and others) upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law.