Writ Law - Educational Institutions - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Examination schedule - Petitioner denied permission to appear for final BDS examination due to expiry of 8-year course completion limit - University failed to conduct supplementary examinations in 2025 as per academic calendar - Court noted that petitioner had cleared all subjects except one and the delay in examination schedule contributed to the expiry of the course duration - Held - As a one-time measure and due to the university's lapses in maintaining the academic schedule the petitioner is permitted to appear for the examination - This order is based on peculiar facts and shall not be treated as a precedent - [Paras 10-14].

Writ Law - Judicial Precedents - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Distinction of judgments - Respondent relied on Siddanth Mahajan vs State of Rajasthan regarding BDS course regulations - Held - Supreme Court judgment did not address the issue of university delay in conducting examinations contrary to the academic calendar - Therefore the present case is distinguishable and relief granted - [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondents directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the theory and practical examination in the subject of Oral Medicine, Diagnosis and Radiology in the October/November 2026 session – No costs

Civil Law - Eviction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXII Rule 9 - Admission - Appellant contended that respondents were estopped from claiming appellant was a trespasser due to an earlier substitution application filed in a previous suit identifying heirs as tenants - Held - Substitution application filed in a previous suit which subsequently abated does not operate as estoppel or acquiescence - Status of the appellant is determined by operation of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 which overrides any contrary admission - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 8-10].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act 2001 - Section 8 - Thika Tenancy - Appellant challenged jurisdiction claiming suit property was Thika land - Trial Court held suit for eviction of trespasser does not fall within Section 8 mandate - Held - Section 8 of the 2001 Act applies only to eviction of tenants/bharatias before the Thika Controller and does not bar a suit for eviction of a trespasser - [Para 11].

Civil Law - Pleadings - Suit property description - Internal partition of suit room - Appellant argued suit was for one room while evidence showed two rooms - Held - Internal partitioning of the suit room does not alter its essential character as described in the plaint schedule - Argument rejected as not raising substantial question of law - [Paras 12-13].

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLI Rule 11 - Substantial question of law - Appeal against judgment of affirmance - Held - No substantial question of law involved in the contentions raised regarding status of trespasser or applicability of special statutes - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 7-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC – Appellant granted liberty to seek time to vacate before the executing court if execution is levied.

Civil Law - Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Unauthorized recording - Respondent caught recording court proceedings on mobile phone without permission and attempting to delete footage upon apprehension - Court invoked provisions regarding sanctity and discipline of judicial proceedings - Held - Unauthorized recording of court proceedings constitutes serious interference with administration of justice and prima facie case for criminal contempt is made out - [Paras 1-12].

Writ Law - Court Procedure - High Court Rules - Recording of proceedings - Rules 9.2 and 9.3 of Rules governing Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings - Express bar on recording court proceedings without prior written authorization - Held - Adherence to rules and norms within courtrooms is mandatory to maintain solemnity and sanctity of judicial process - [Paras 4-11].

Evidence Law - Digital Evidence - Recovery of deleted data - Mobile handset seized by court staff and examined by IT Department revealing deleted video files of court proceedings - Held - Act of attempting to delete recording establishes knowledge of the prohibition and deliberate violation of court decorum - [Paras 2-8].

Decision: Respondent directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/- with High Court Legal Services Authority - Mobile handset confiscated and data therein to be wiped in presence of Respondent - Compliance report ordered for 19/10/2026.

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Enhancement of Compensation - Tribunal awarded Rs 3,94,490 for grievous injuries involving multiple fractures and seven surgeries - Claimant challenged assessment of income and failure to account for future prospects - High Court re-evaluated evidence of medical disability and loss of earning capacity - Court applied multiplier method and included 40 percent towards future prospects in line with Pranay Sethi - Enhanced compensation to Rs 9,68,700 holding that tribunal erred in fixing daily wages at a nominal rate and failing to award adequate non-pecuniary damages - Held - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-13].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims - Evidence - Burden of Proof - Respondent failed to examine driver of offending vehicle despite being best person to testify - Absence of rebuttal evidence and reliance on police charge sheet - Held - Evidence of claimant supported by First Information Report and Charge Sheet sufficient to establish rash and negligent driving - [Para 10].

Civil Law - Quantum of Compensation - Future Prospects - Permanent Disability - Determination of just compensation - Court reaffirmed that tribunals must award adequate compensation for physical injury, loss of earning capacity and inability to lead a normal life - Held - Compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and attendant charges must be assessed based on societal circumstances rather than strict mathematical formulae - [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Compensation enhanced from Rs 3,94,490 to Rs 9,68,700 with interest at 7.5% per annum - Respondents directed to deposit balance within one month.

Civil Law - Government Premises - Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1955 - Section 4 - Unauthorized subletting - Petitioner challenged eviction proceedings alleging the eviction order exceeded the grounds stated in the show-cause notice and violated principles of natural justice - High Court observed that the charge of illegal subletting was common to both the notice and the final order - Held - An eviction order founded on multiple grounds is not vitiated if one of the grounds is valid and independently sufficient to sustain the order - Petitioner failed to show cause against the notice and failed to bring the alleged reply on record before the Trial Court - Petition dismissed - [Paras 18-22].

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference - High Court's role under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty or flagrant abuse of law - Court cannot act as a Court of first appeal to re-appreciate evidence or re-weigh facts - Held - Impugned order of the Trial Court was well-reasoned and based on correct appreciation of evidence - No grounds for interference - [Paras 17-20].

Evidence Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Opportunity to show cause - Petitioner claimed denial of hearing while failing to respond to substantive allegations in the notice - Held - Failure to avail of the opportunity to reply to a show-cause notice precludes a party from claiming violation of natural justice - [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court upheld – Rule discharged.

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 118 and 139 - Rebuttal of statutory presumption - Petitioner-accused was convicted by trial court and appellate court for offence under Section 138 NI Act - In revision petitioner contended that impugned cheque was misplaced in 1996 and intimated to Bank- Complainant used said cheque in 2000 after company faced insolvency proceedings - High Court observed that while accused did not file police complaint regarding theft he provided evidence of intimation to Bank and highlighted lack of documentation for final settlement despite prior documented dealings - Held - Petitioner successfully rebutted statutory presumption by preponderance of probabilities creating reasonable doubt about existence of legally enforceable debt - Conviction set aside - [Paras 6-22].

Criminal Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Scope of interference - High Court examined whether concurrent findings were perverse or ignored relevant evidence - Court noted that Appellate Court failed to assess the impact of missing documentation and the suspicious timing of cheque issuance amidst bank recovery proceedings against the company - Held - Revisional court empowered to interfere where lower courts committed error in assessing facts leading to miscarriage of justice - [Paras 10-11 22].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 118 and 139 - Preponderance of probabilities - Accused need not prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt but only raise a probable defence to shift onus back to complainant - Held - Cumulative circumstances including intimation of loss of cheque to bank and initiation of proceedings after company's financial crisis constitute a sufficient case for rebuttal - [Paras 13-21].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner acquitted – Sureties released – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Civil Law - Registration of Documents - Registration Act 1908 - Rule 26(i)(k)(i) - Unilateral cancellation of registered gift deed - Petitioner-donee challenged registration of revocation deed executed unilaterally by donor-mother after seven years - Respondent-authorities relied on departmental memos claiming Rule 26(k) applies only to sale deeds - High Court held that once gift is registered and accepted title vests absolutely in donee - Unilateral revocation is non-est and void ab-initio - Registering officer lacks power to entertain such deeds - Held - Unilateral cancellation set aside and departmental memos authorizing such registration declared unsustainable - [Paras 1-34].

Property Law - Transfer of Property - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Sections 123 and 126 - Gift deed - Once a gift is accepted and registered title passes to donee - Donor divested of all rights and cannot unilaterally revoke gift at mere will - Remedy for cancellation on grounds of fraud or coercion lies only before Civil Court via suit - Held - Impugned revocation deed is void - [Paras 8-10].

Administrative Law - Executive Instructions - Subordination to Statute - Registration Rules - Departmental Memos No. G4/4597/2016 and RC.No.G1/10547/2008 permitting unilateral cancellation of gift deeds - Executive instructions cannot override or supplant statutory rules or substantive law - Held - Memos are in direct contravention of Rule 26(i)(k)(i) and are liable to be set aside - [Paras 24-30].

Writ Law - Powers of High Court - Article 226 - Technicalities in pleadings - Petitioner did not specifically challenge the administrative memos in the prayer - Held - High Court in exercise of its wide powers under Article 226 can grant consequential relief to secure justice and override technical pleas to address the illegality of the memos - [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed - Registration of revocation deed dated 17/09/2022 set aside - Departmental Memos dated 06/06/2016 and 18/07/2008 set aside.

Writ Law - Look Out Circular - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to travel - Petitioner bank sought review of order cancelling LOC issued against guarantor of a corporate entity - Bank argued that pending potential bankruptcy proceedings and guarantor status justified continued restriction - Court held that a loan default without allegations of fraud does not justify the infringement of the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 - LOCs cannot be issued by banks without statutory backing - No error apparent on the face of the record found - Review dismissed - [Paras 8-19].

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Scope of review - Petitioner attempted to re-argue the case on merits by introducing facts available but not presented during original hearing - Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and new arguments do not constitute discovery of new facts - Held - Review petition devoid of merit - [Paras 8-19].

Constitutional Law - Right to travel - Article 21 - Executive power - LOC issued by bank requisition - Court held that a letter from a bank manager to the Bureau of Immigration does not constitute law and cannot restrict the fundamental right to travel - Only a valid legislation can impose such restrictions - Held - The right to travel cannot be curtailed solely to compel the repayment of a civil debt - [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Review Petition dismissed – Original order directing revocation of the Look Out Circular upheld.

Civil Law - Partition Suit - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 1 and Order XXIII Rule 1-A - Defendant seeking transposition as plaintiff - Trial Court permitted original plaintiffs to withdraw suit unconditionally despite defendants claiming a 2/3rd share in the written statement - Trial Court rejected transposition on grounds that no formal counter-claim was filed - High Court held that in a partition suit a defendant seeking a share is in the position of a plaintiff and the right to withdraw is not absolute when it defeats the claim of a co-sharer - Held - Trial Court acted with material irregularity - transposition allowed - [Paras 12-25].

Civil Law - Transposition of Parties - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 1-A - Substantial question - Determination of whether applicant has a substantial question to be decided against other defendants - Court must ensure effectual and comprehensive adjudication to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - A claim for a share in a partition suit constitutes a substantial question satisfying the requirement of Rule 1-A - Held - Trial Court erred in applying an overly restrictive test and ignoring the wider scope of judicial power - [Paras 16-20].

Civil Law - Procedural Irregularity - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Admission of documents - Trial Court refused to consider existing court records (amendment petition) on the ground that they were not certified copies - High Court held that documents forming part of the court's own record cannot be treated as inadmissible for lack of certification - Held - Irregularity going to the exercise of jurisdiction - [Para 22].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed - Impugned order dated 26.04.2023 set aside - Transposition of defendants as plaintiffs allowed - Suit restored for adjudication on rival claims - Trial Court granted liberty to examine the genuineness of the original plaint and signatures during trial.