Properties Beyond Jurisdiction – Counter Claim Rightly Rejected – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title in respect of Premi House, Guna – Defendant No. 8 (petitioner), a legal heir of Babulal, filed counter claim seeking partition and declaration of title in respect of properties at village Ruthiyai, District Guna, which fell within jurisdiction of Court at Raghogarh and not Guna Court – Trial Court rejected counter claim; appellate court dismissed appeal – Held: Counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A(4) is required to be treated as a plaint and governed by rules applicable to plaints including territorial jurisdiction; when counter claim properties are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of Trial Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate it; orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court are valid [Paras 10-14].

Section 17 CPC – Suits for Immovable Property in Different Jurisdictions – Counter Claim Cannot Be Read with Plaint – Petitioner invoked Section 17 CPC by reading plaint and counter claim together to argue that since one property was within Guna Court's jurisdiction, the entire counter claim was maintainable – Held: Counter claim is independent of the plaint and must satisfy requirements of Section 17 CPC independently – Section 17 requires that the cause of action for filing the suit regarding properties in different jurisdictions must be one and the same – No cause of action was pleaded in the counter claim nor was there any similarity of cause of action between plaint and counter claim; Section 17 CPC not attracted [Paras 12-16].

Counter Claim – Must Be Against Plaintiff – Not Against Co-Defendants – Counter claim is further liable to be rejected on the ground that it was vague and did not mention addresses of properties at serial nos. 2 to 5 – Relief of partition claimed was against co-defendants only and not against plaintiffs – Cause of action for filing counter claim not specifically pleaded – Counter claim can be filed by defendant against plaintiff and may incidentally claim relief against co-defendant, but cannot be solely directed against co-defendants [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Miscellaneous petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court rejecting counter claim upheld – No interference warranted.

Education Law – Year Down Categorisation – Attendance Shortfall – Unit Test Absence – Validity of YD Classification – Petitioner's attendance during Third Semester fell below 30% against the prescribed minimum of 75% under Clause 3.6.1 (Criteria 1) of the Student Handbook – Petitioner also remained absent in both Unit Tests in violation of Clause 3.6.2 (Criteria 2) – University issued communication dated 30.01.2026 placing petitioner in "YD" category without declaring end-semester examination result – Held: YD classification is a lawful and necessary consequence of failure to satisfy Criteria 1 and Criteria 2; petition dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Academic Progression – YD Rule – Independent Bar – End-Semester Result Irrelevant – Petitioner contended that YD status could not be invoked without first declaring end-semester examination result – Held: Failure to fulfill attendance (Criteria 1) and Unit Test requirements (Criteria 2) operates as a distinct and independent bar to academic progression, irrespective of the outcome of the end-semester examination – Plain reading of Clause 3.6 of Student Handbook leaves no ambiguity in this regard [Para 14].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Promissory Estoppel – Interim Judicial Direction – No Waiver of Academic Deficiency – Petitioner argued that the University's proposal permitting him to appear in the Third Semester examination, acted upon pursuant to order dated 14.12.2025 in W.P. No. 46548/2025, created an estoppel against imposition of YD – Held: An interim or ad-hoc arrangement permitting a student to merely appear in an examination cannot operate to waive substantive statutory academic deficiencies; mandate of the Rule remains undisturbed [Para 15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – YD categorisation upheld – No interference warranted under Article 226 – No order as to costs.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Quashing of proceedings – Trap case – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging absence of preliminary enquiry, lack of jurisdiction of ACB, defective sanction, and absence of recovery from personal possession – Held, at stage prior to trial Court only required to assess existence of prima facie materials – Statements of shadow witness, trap proceedings, phenolphthalein test and call records disclose prima facie demand and handling of tainted money – Ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) satisfied at threshold – Petition dismissed [Paras 28–30, 39, 48–49]

Demand of illegal gratification – Sine qua non – Reliance on Supreme Court precedents – Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction but at pre-trial stage existence of prima facie material is sufficient – Witness statements and surrounding circumstances can establish demand even at initial stage – Matter to be tested in full-fledged trial [Paras 33–37, 39]

Preliminary enquiry – Trap cases – Whether mandatory – Though Government Notification dated 22.11.2012 prescribes preliminary enquiry and assignment by P&AR Department, settled law holds that in trap cases preliminary enquiry is not mandatory where cognizable offence is disclosed – Accused has no vested right to demand preliminary enquiry – Non-conduct of such enquiry not fatal at this stage [Paras 42–44]

Jurisdiction of Anti-Corruption Branch – Statewide jurisdiction – Notification dated 14.11.2012 validly confers police station status and jurisdiction across West Bengal – Objection regarding closure of office on holiday rejected as police stations function continuously – Investigation not vitiated on this ground [Paras 40–41]

Recovery of tainted money – Not from person – Effect – Mere recovery from nearby place (sofa) not fatal when supported by phenolphthalein test showing handling of tainted notes and corroborative evidence – Prima facie case still made out [Paras 23–24, 28]

Departmental proceedings – Effect on criminal prosecution – Quashing of departmental proceedings by Tribunal not determinative where not decided on merits after evidence – Criminal prosecution can proceed independently – No ground for quashing [Paras 46–47]

Territorial jurisdiction – Demand beyond official posting – Public servant can demand gratification for facilitating work beyond formal jurisdiction – Corruption cannot be confined to strict territorial limits – Not a ground to quash proceedings [Para 45]

Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Interference at pre-trial stage – Court should not conduct mini-trial or assess sufficiency of evidence – Where prima facie materials exist, proceedings should not be quashed – Trial Court to adjudicate on evidence [Paras 30, 48]

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – Prayer for quashing criminal proceedings rejected – Trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Hindu Marriage – Validity of Second Marriage – Pending Appeal against Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Ayyappan's first marriage with the first petitioner was solemnised on 20.03.1977 – Decree of divorce granted by trial court on 13.06.1990 – First petitioner filed MFA 667/1990 before this Court on 10.07.1990 challenging the decree – Ayyappan contracted second marriage with the appellant on 30.01.1991 during pendency of the appeal – Appeal was ultimately allowed and decree of divorce reversed – Held: Second marriage contracted during pendency of appeal against divorce decree is void as contravening Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Family Court decree affirmed [Paras 6-11].

Section 15, Hindu Marriage Act – Right of Appeal – Effect on Subsequent Marriage – Section 15 permits remarriage only when no right of appeal exists, or the time for appeal has expired without an appeal being filed, or an appeal has been dismissed – An appeal is the continuation of original proceedings and acts done pending appeal are subject to its outcome – A party cannot defeat the appeal by contracting a second marriage during its pendency – Dissolution of marriage is complete once decree is made, subject to appeal [Paras 7-10].

Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain Distinguished – Appellant's reliance on Lila Gupta (1978) misplaced – That case concerned marriage during the one-year prohibitory period under the proviso to Section 15 and held such marriage not void – However, the Apex Court in that case itself underscored that such marriage is subject to the result of the appeal – In the present case, an appeal was filed within limitation and was ultimately allowed, reversing the divorce decree – The ratio of Lila Gupta does not assist the appellant [Paras 8-9].

Service of Notice in Appeal – Irrelevance – Contention that notice in the appeal was served only after the second marriage and hence marriage is saved, rejected – Relying on Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (AIR 1967 SC 581), a party who has obtained a decree of dissolution cannot by contracting an immediate second marriage deprive the other party of the chance to prefer an appeal or special leave petition – Such a party acts at their own risk [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Second marriage of Ayyappan with appellant held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Decree of Family Court affirmed.

Succession Law – Letters of Administration – Intestacy – Maintainability – Will Disputed – Petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act filed by the daughter of the deceased (petitioner) seeking Letters of Administration on the ground that the deceased died intestate – Deceased survived by wife, son and two daughters as Class I heirs – Petitioner challenged the Will dated 07.02.2025 alleging that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity on account of severe physical and mental ailments including Parkinson's disease, dementia, schizophrenia, near blindness and chronic kidney disease – Alleged that deceased was non compos mentis and that the Will was procured through undue influence by Respondent No. 1 (son) who controlled access to the deceased – Respondent No. 1 filed a rival petition under Section 276 seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed claiming to be universal legatee – Both petitions transferred to Delhi High Court by the Supreme Court – Held: Petition under Section 278 on the footing of intestacy is not maintainable when a Will has surfaced and rival testamentary proceedings with the Will annexed are pending; petition dismissed [Paras 4-8, 53-58, 69, 76-77].

Testamentary Jurisdiction – Exclusive Forum for Validity of Will – Probate Proceedings in Rem – Validity and due execution of a Will can be adjudicated only in proceedings for grant of probate or Letters of Administration with Will annexed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act – Proceedings under Section 278 (intestacy) cannot be used to prove or disprove a Will – Grant of probate or Letters of Administration is a proceeding in rem and conclusive against the world – Mere assertion that a Will is invalid does not render the estate intestate; intestacy arises only upon failure to establish a valid testamentary disposition – Held: Will can be proved or disproved only in TEST.CAS. 4/2026 [Paras 42-50, 56-57, 63-66].

Competing Testamentary Petitions – Probate Petition Blocks Letters of Administration – Where two petitions are filed for the same estate, one for probate/Letters of Administration with Will annexed and the other for Letters of Administration without Will, the petition founded on intestacy cannot proceed until the testamentary petition is disposed of – The testamentary court has no discretion to prefer one over the other; scheme of Indian Succession Act gives precedence to the testamentary petition – Any grant on intestacy is liable to revocation under Section 263 upon proof of the Will [Paras 59-60, 67-68, 72-73].

Estoppel – Intestacy Petition Filed Earlier in Time – No Preference – Petitioner contended that her petition filed before Bombay High Court was prior in point of time and therefore the Will ought to be proved therein – Held: Priority in filing does not confer the right to have the Will adjudicated in an intestacy petition; the statutory framework mandates adjudication in testamentary proceedings under Section 276 – All contentions regarding suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will may be raised in TEST.CAS. 4/2026 by filing an appropriate reply [Paras 61-63, 78].

Administrator Pendente Lite – Court's Power under Sections 247 and 263 – Though the intestacy petition is dismissed, the Court retains power under Sections 247 and 263 of the Indian Succession Act to appoint an administrator pendente lite for preservation and management of the estate during pendency of testamentary proceedings in TEST.CAS. 4/2026 [Paras 74-75].

Decision: TEST.CAS. 2/2026 dismissed – Petitioner granted liberty to raise all grounds regarding suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will by filing an appropriate reply in TEST.CAS. 4/2026 – TEST.CAS. 4/2026 listed for further proceedings on 04.05.2026.

Service Law – Reservation – 50% Ceiling – Backlog Vacancies – Advertisement by OPSC – Impugned advertisement (No. 9 of 2024-25) advertised 5248 posts of Medical Officers (Group-A, Junior Branch), with 411 posts for UR, 736 for SEBC, 1620 for SC and 2481 for ST – Petitioners contended that reserved category vacancies at 4837 far exceeded the 50% ceiling when measured against 411 UR posts, violating the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney and R.K. Sabharwal – Held: Advertisement could not have been issued in the manner so done; backlog vacancies ought to have been segregated from current vacancies in terms of Article 16(4-B) and the decision in Sangam Nath Pandey [Paras 2, 6.1, 6.2].

Constitutional Law – Article 16(4-B) – Backlog Vacancies – Segregation Mandatory – Backlog vacancies of reserved category candidates are to be treated as a separate class and cannot be clubbed with current year vacancies for the purpose of determining the 50% ceiling – Both the Government requisition dated 12.02.2025 and the consequential advertisement failed to segregate backlog vacancies from current vacancies – Held: Non-compliance with Article 16(4-B) and the mandate in Sangam Nath Pandey renders the advertisement defective [Paras 3.2, 6.1].

Service Law – De-reservation of Backlog Posts – Base Level Posts – Not Permissible – Petitioners sought de-reservation of SC/ST backlog vacancies not filled for more than three recruitment years under Section 7 of the ORV Act, 1975 – State relied on clarification dated 20.03.2008 issued by SC & ST Development Department, based on M. Nagraj, holding that base level posts cannot be de-reserved – Held: Since the posts in question are base level posts, this Court is not inclined to direct de-reservation of backlog vacancies meant for SC, ST and OBC candidates [Para 6.3].

Service Law – Recruitment – Moulding of Relief – State Crunch – Doctor Shortage – Considering the State's submission that there is a complete dearth of doctors and the selection process has already been completed, this Court, relying on Sangam Nath Pandey and Jarnail Singh (Para 35), permitted the Commission to recommend 411 UR category candidates as well as 411 reserved category candidates proportionately to the percentage of reservation – The Department is further permitted to fill up reserved category posts from backlog vacancies after receipt of recommendation from the Commission [Para 6.4].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions – Commission permitted to recommend 411 UR and 411 reserved category candidates proportionately – Department permitted to fill reserved category posts from backlog vacancies after receipt of recommendation – Interim order vacated.

Family Pension – Karewa Marriage – Discontinuation of Family Pension – Constitutional Validity – Petitioners' family pension discontinued citing remarriage to their deceased husbands' brothers through karewa marriage – Karewa marriage is a customary practice recognized under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where a widow remarries within the family of her deceased husband – Court held that karewa marriage cannot be equated to remarriage for the limited purpose of grant of family pension as the widow continues to live a communal life with the family of the deceased and remains dependent on the same household – Legislative intent behind disqualifying remarried widows from family pension is redistributive, not punitive, based on the assumption that the new family bears financial responsibility – However, in karewa marriages, no such fragmentation of financial responsibilities occurs – Strict mechanical disqualification would overlook social reality and defeat the beneficial nature of family pension provisions – State of Punjab amended Rule 8.35(2)(b) PCSR vide notification dated 28.05.1975 recognizing that a widow who remarries her deceased husband's brother and continues to live a communal life shall not be disqualified for extraordinary pension – Family pension is a social security measure flowing from the vision of a Welfare State under Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a), and 41 of the Constitution – Beneficial legislation must receive liberal and purposive construction – Held: Karewa marriage does not disqualify widows from family pension as they remain members of the same family and continue supporting dependents of the deceased employee [Paras 3-4, 10, 13-16, 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Dignified Existence – Article 21 of the Constitution – Family pension as a retiral benefit is not a bounty but akin to wages and essential for survival and dignified life of dependents of deceased employees – Right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live a dignified meaningful life with bare necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself – Any act offending human dignity constitutes a violation of Article 21 – Family pension serves as the only source of income for many families when the primary breadwinner passes away – Denial of family pension on technical grounds of karewa marriage would violate the right to dignified existence – Held: Family pension is a social security measure integral to the constitutional vision of a Welfare State and right to life under Article 21 [Paras 11-12].

Service Law – Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Purposive Construction – Family pension provisions must be interpreted liberally keeping in mind their beneficial nature – Literal construction of beneficial legislation must be avoided – Courts must discern the legislative intention and adopt a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy – Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation should not be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions – Semantic luxuries are misplaced in interpretation of bread and butter statutes – Welfare statutes must necessarily receive broad interpretation – Court must be concerned with the colour, content and context of beneficial statutes – Notification dated 17.04.2009 by Government of Haryana allows special considerations to prevent undue hardship in particular cases under residuary provisions and power to relax – Held: Beneficial policies and family pension provisions must be given liberal and purposive interpretation to achieve social justice [Paras 17-18].

Custom and Personal Law – Karewa Marriage – Social Purpose and Legal Recognition – Karewa marriages serve important social purposes including providing patronage to minor children, preserving dignity of widows, ensuring continuity of care for aged parents, and establishing paternity from within blood relatives who raise children with genuine care – This customary practice is recognized under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Upon karewa marriage, ties between the widow, her children and the matrimonial family are not severed by death of the first husband – The matrimonial family shoulders moral responsibility for their well-being – Custom assists in social and financial rehabilitation of widows and their children – Children remain under the same guardianship structure and aged parents reside in the same household – There is no fragmentation of financial responsibilities – Held: Karewa marriage has harmonizing effect on service rules rather than disqualifying widows from family pension [Paras 13-16].

Administrative Law – Model Employer – State's Duty to Stay Alive to Social Realities – The State, being a model employer, must stay alive to social realities and endeavor to balance equity with statutory mandate – Particularly when customs such as karewa marriage are in harmony with settled law, strict mechanical application of disqualification provisions would be inappropriate – Administrative authorities must apply beneficial provisions in a manner that serves their social purpose – Grant of family pension to daughter cannot be used as estoppel against the petitioner when the amount was used to take care of the family of the deceased employee – Held: State must adopt contextual and purposive approach rather than rigid formalistic interpretation [Paras 8, 16].

Pension Law – Family Pension – Nature and Purpose – Pension and retiral benefits are not bounty by nature but are akin to wages relied upon by pensioner and his family for assistance – Entitlement to dignified and secured life must be applied with greater force to family pension as it is granted only when an earning member of the family passes away leaving dependents at risk of destitution – Right to family pension is not vested in widow alone but flows to all immediate dependents of deceased employee – Dependents when possible must be allowed to be treated as a unit as their lives are not untethered from each other – Disqualifying the widow from family pension would jeopardize rights of any surviving dependents of deceased husband – Held: Family pension serves critical role in preventing destitution of dependents and must be interpreted liberally [Paras 11, 19].

Decision: All three writ petitions allowed – Concerned authorities directed to reinstate family pension of respective petitioners – Karewa marriage cannot be equated to remarriage for limited purpose of grant of family pension – Petitioners not disqualified by applicable rules – Authorities shall recalculate amount due and disburse arrears within 04 months – If not disbursed within 04 months, petitioners entitled to interest on arrears at rate of 7.5% p.a. till actual realization.

Gang Rape – Minor Prosecutrix – Sections 376(D), 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 5(g), 6 POCSO Act – Conviction Upheld – Both appellants convicted for gang-raping a 14-year-old girl from Scheduled Caste community – Trial court sentenced each appellant to 20 years rigorous imprisonment – High Court on appeal finds testimony of prosecutrix clear, consistent and inspiring confidence – FSL report showing human semen on victim's slide and accused's clothing corroborates the prosecution case – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence affirmed; appeal dismissed [Paras 31-32].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – School Records vs. Ossification Test – Prosecutrix's age proved through school Scholar Register, admission form and transfer certificate showing date of birth as 15.08.2000, establishing her age as 14 years on the date of incident – Appellants argued X-ray/ossification test showed age between 17-18 years – Held: School records prevail over medical opinion; ossification test is relevant only in the absence of documents under Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules; victim was below 18 years on the date of incident; question of consent does not arise [Paras 11-13].

Test Identification Parade – Non-Conduct – Admissibility of Court Identification – Victim admitted she did not know the accused prior to the incident and learnt their names during the incident when they called each other by name – No TIP conducted during investigation – Held: Identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation and failure to hold TIP does not make court identification inadmissible; substantive evidence is identification in court; court identification is valid in given circumstances if witness is trustworthy and reliable [Paras 26-30].

Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency for Conviction – Testimony of prosecutrix (PW-5) corroborated by her mother (PW-6), aunt (PW-4), sister (PW-8) and aunt (PW-9) to whom she narrated the incident immediately thereafter – Medical evidence confirming ruptured hymen and FSL report confirming human semen on victim's slide and accused's clothing – Held: Conviction can be based solely on the trustworthy statement of the prosecutrix even without independent corroboration; minor contradictions do not affect the core case [Para 31].

Defence of Alibi – Not Proved – Defence examined DW-1 (father of accused Amit Kol) and DW-2 (brother of accused Ajay) claiming accused were at Jamuna Tola for labour work on the date of incident – Held: Under Section 11 of the Evidence Act the distance must be so great as to make presence at the scene impossible; no such situation exists; defence of alibi not proved by cogent evidence; no material contradiction or motive for false implication established [Para 25].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(D) IPC affirmed – Appellants to serve 20 years rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the trial court.

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Interim Order – Creation of Third-Party Rights – An interim order dated 16.07.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in A.S. No. 1280 of 2017, while releasing original documents to the appellant/respondent No. 2, expressly restrained him from creating third-party rights over the suit schedule properties or pledging/mortgaging the original documents – Respondent No. 2 applied for modification of the interim order to permit pledge of property for a bank loan, which was rejected on 04.08.2022 – Despite this, respondent No. 2 executed a mortgage deed (Document No. 4299 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023) and thereafter a registered sale deed (Document No. 25358 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024) in favour of third parties – Execution of both deeds admitted by respondent No. 2 – Held: Charges of wilful disobedience proved – Contempt committed [Paras 3-26].

Defence – Nominal Transaction – Kararnama – Not Accepted – Respondent No. 2 sought to justify the sale deed as a nominal transaction and pleaded that on the same date the purchasers executed a kararnama agreeing to reconvey the property by 10.06.2026 – Held: The execution of the mortgage deed and the sale deed was a conscious and deliberate act – Application for modification of the interim order was rejected and despite that the alienations were made – Defence of nominal transaction is not acceptable – Financial compulsion cannot justify violation of a Court's order [Paras 19-24].

Wilful Disobedience – Meaning – "Wilful" means an act done voluntarily with specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law – Even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt – The act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case [Para 25].

Apology – Not Bona Fide – Rejected – Apology is an act of contrition and must be offered at the earliest opportunity in good grace – An apology tendered only when punishment is imminent is shorn of penitence and is the act of a cringing coward – The apology in the present case is not bona fide as the disobedience was conscious and contumacious and the modification application was rejected before the alienations were made – Apology rejected [Paras 27-30].

Punishment – Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act – Respondent No. 2 punished with simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- – Additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed to be remitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee – Respondent entitled to subsistence allowance of Rs. 500/- per day during civil imprisonment to be deposited by the contempt petitioner – In default of fine, action to be taken under Section 421 CrPC/Section 456 BNSS [Paras 31-41].

Decision: Contempt Case allowed – Charges proved – Apology rejected – Respondent No. 2 sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.