Interim Maintenance – Wife and Minor Child – Article 227 – Modification of Quantum – Trial Court directed husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – High Court held that in absence of concrete evidence regarding income of husband, maintenance awarded was on higher side – Held: Interim maintenance reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and child [Paras 8–9].

Marriage – Plea of Non-Consummation – Absence of Specific Pleading – Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion – No specific plea of non-consummation raised in main H.M.O.P. – Such plea raised only at interim maintenance stage held unsustainable – Objection to maintenance on ground of non-consummation rejected [Paras 6–7].

Presumption of Legitimacy – Section 112 Evidence Act – Child Born Within Wedlock – Marriage solemnised on 10.02.2017 and child born on 09.12.2017 – Statutory presumption of legitimacy attracted – Wife entitled to rely on presumption under Section 112 – Prima facie entitlement to maintenance upheld [Para 6].

Maintenance Proceedings – Burden Regarding Income – Conflicting Claims – Wife alleged husband earning Rs.40,000/- per month as flower decorator – Husband claimed to be daily wage worker earning Rs.400/- per day – No documentary proof produced by either side – Court assessed maintenance on overall circumstances and reasonableness [Para 8].

Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court not inclined to set aside grant of interim maintenance – Interference confined only to correction of quantum found excessive – Order of Trial Court otherwise affirmed [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Civil Revision Partly Allowed – Interim maintenance modified from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Trial Court directed to dispose of main H.M.O.P. expeditiously – No costs [Paras 9–10].

Land Reforms – Conversion – Section 4C WBLR Act – Maintainability dependent on status of applicant – Petitioner applied under Section 4C for conversion of 14.33 acres for residential/commercial use – DL & LRO rejected holding petitioner a “lessee” under Section 4B WBLR Act and not entitled to seek conversion reserved for “raiyats” – Commissioner affirmed rejection on different reasoning relating to factory-closure consequences – Tribunal dismissed challenge – Writ filed [Paras 1, 6–9].

Background – Retention/Resumption history under WBEA Act – Total holding earlier 16.29/16.9 acres with structures – 1999 Government order permitted retention for factory purpose with condition of putting 1.96 acres to factory use within two years, failing which review/resumption under proviso to Section 6(3) WBEA Act – 1.96 acres later resumed; Tribunal (2013) upheld; High Court (2014) set aside; present dispute confined to remaining 14.33 acres and conversion request [Paras 2–6].

Automatic retention under Section 6(1)(b) & (c) WBEA Act – Order under Section 6(3) treated as surplusage – Court held retention contemplated by Section 6(1)(b) (land comprised in/appertaining to buildings/structures) and Section 6(1)(c) (non-agricultural land in khas possession up to 15 acres) is automatic “with effect from the date of vesting” – No further permission/order necessary – Since subject land is 14.33 acres (below 15-acre ceiling) and includes structures, petitioner’s right to retain arose co-genetically with vesting – Hence any later/parallel order under Section 6(3) read with Section 6(1)(g) was superfluous and could not alter the statutory character of retention [Paras 31–33, 40–47, 59].

Section 6(5) WBEA Act and Rule 4A(1) 1954 Rules – ‘Choice’ relevant only where excess land exists – “Choice” under Section 6(5) arises only if land exceeds ceiling requiring selection of portion to retain – Where holding is within ceiling, no choice/statement required; revenue officer’s duty to allow retention operates only in excess situations – On facts, no occasion for “choice” because 14.33 acres is within 15-acre limit under Section 6(1)(c) and land appertains to structures under Section 6(1)(b) – Proviso to Rule 4A(1) reinforces that no choice is required when within limit [Paras 34–38, 40–45].

Deemed lessee under Section 4B(2) WBLR Act – Not attracted where retention is under Section 6(1)(b)/(c) – Section 4B(2) deems a retainer “lessee” where intermediary has been allowed to retain land with/without order under Section 6(1)(g) read with Section 6(3) WBEA Act – Court held that since retention here is traceable to automatic clauses 6(1)(b)/(c), petitioner’s status is not converted into lessee merely because an order under 6(3) existed – Petitioner is a “raiyat” under Section 2(10) WBLR Act and can invoke Section 4C [Paras 49–53, 58–60, 64–65].

Precedents applied – Distinction between clauses (a)–(e) and (f)–(g) of Section 6(1) – Court relied on: (i) Calcutta Mineral Supply Co. for proposition that retention under Section 6(1) cannot be subjected to Section 6(3) – (ii) Ratnagiri Engineering noting automatic retention for clauses (a)–(e) and non-automatic retention for clauses (f)–(g) requiring order under 6(3) – (iii) BRC Construction and Juhi Finalease reinforcing protection where within ceiling/structures exist [Paras 60–63].

Ex parte disposal – As State respondents were absent at hearing, petition decided ex parte on merits [Para 28].

Relief – Orders set aside – Declaration of status – Remand for reconsideration of conversion – Tribunal judgment (03.01.2023) and orders of Commissioner and DL & LRO set aside – Petitioner declared “raiyat” under Section 2(10) WBLR Act and not deemed “lessee” under Section 4B(2) – DL & LRO directed to reconsider and dispose conversion application under Section 4C treating petitioner as raiyat within two months – No costs [Paras 65–69].

Decision: WPLRT 126/2023 allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Petitioner declared raiyat – Conversion application to be reconsidered within 2 months.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Compromise-Based Bail – Breach of Settlement – Recall and Cancellation of Bail – Anticipatory bail earlier granted solely on the basis of a compromise arrived at before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre – Bail order expressly recorded that parties shall abide by settlement terms – Accused failed to comply with agreed obligation of handing over alternate flat and executing sale deed within stipulated time – Held: When bail is granted on the foundation of a compromise, such settlement ceases to be a private contract and becomes a solemn undertaking to the Court – Breach thereof amounts to abuse of the process of law and violation of judicial trust – Bail liable to be recalled and cancelled [Paras 7–7.2, 11].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Abuse of Process – “Shopping for Liberty” through Hollow Undertakings – Judicial Condemnation – Court took judicial notice of a growing trend where accused secure liberty on the pretext of settlement and subsequently resile from commitments – Such conduct undermines dignity of courts and reduces judicial orders to negotiable instruments – Held: Courts cannot permit litigants to take the judicial process for a ride by securing discretionary relief through deceptive compromises – Stern response warranted to preserve sanctity of justice delivery system [Paras 7.1, 10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 362 CrPC / Section 403 BNSS – Bar on Review – Distinction between Review and Cancellation of Bail – Objection raised that recall of bail order is barred by Section 362 CrPC – Rejected – Held: Setting aside bail due to violation of conditions does not amount to review or alteration of final judgment – Power to cancel bail is inherent and statutory corollary to power to grant bail – Where the very basis of bail order is destroyed by accused’s conduct, Court is competent to withdraw protection [Paras 9, 15].

Anticipatory Bail – Consideration on Merits after Recall – Nature and Gravity of Offence – Criminal Antecedents – Upon recalling compromise-based bail, Court proceeded to examine anticipatory bail on merits for the first time – Allegations disclose cheating, criminal breach of trust and fraud involving substantial monetary loss – Accused involved in multiple FIRs of similar nature – Repeated conduct not a mere civil dispute – Held: Seriousness of allegations, pattern of criminal conduct and societal impact disentitle accused from discretionary relief under Section 438 CrPC [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation not Sole Test – Prima Facie Case and Gravity Paramount – Argument that custodial interrogation not required rejected – Held: Absence of custodial interrogation by itself is not a ground for grant of anticipatory bail – Court must first assess prima facie case, nature of offence and severity of allegations – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 8.1, 13–14].

Costs – Exemplary Costs for Misuse of Judicial Process – Court imposed costs of Rs.25,000/- on petitioner for abusing process of law – Costs directed to be deposited with Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Recovery mechanism provided in case of default – Held: Exemplary costs necessary to deter litigants from manipulating judicial leniency and to ensure no premium is placed on dishonesty [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Application for recall allowed – Earlier order granting anticipatory bail dated 17.01.2022 set aside – Main anticipatory bail petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to surrender within 15 days with liberty to apply for regular bail – Costs imposed – All pending applications disposed of.

Right to Information – Personal Information – Salary Details of Employee – Petitioner sought copies of pay slips/details of salary paid to an employee of the respondent department for specific period – Information denied on ground that it pertains to third party and is personal in nature – Held: Service-related details including pay slips fall within ambit of “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act – Disclosure impermissible in absence of larger public interest [Paras 3–4].

Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act – Third Party Information – Exemption – Information relating to performance and service matters of an employee is primarily between employer and employee – Such information has no relationship to public activity or public interest unless larger public interest is shown – No overriding public interest demonstrated by petitioner [Para 4].

Judicial Review under Article 226 – Scope – Orders of competent authority and State Information Commission refusing disclosure upheld – No illegality or infirmity found warranting interference in writ jurisdiction [Paras 3–5].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 23.10.2024 of Rajasthan State Information Commission upheld – No direction for disclosure of pay slips/salary details – Stay petition disposed of.

Criminal Revision – Quashing of Proceedings – Alleged Forgery of Vouchers and Cheques in R&D Project – Charge-sheet based on disputed handwriting and encashment of cheques – Handwriting expert repeatedly opined inability to fix authorship of disputed writings qua petitioner – Witnesses admitted handing over withdrawn amounts to another person (Debashis Shome) – Held: Materials collected give rise at best to suspicion and not grave suspicion – Continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law – Proceedings quashed [Paras discussing expert reports; Witness C.S.W.7, 8, 10; Final paragraphs].

Expert Opinion – Handwriting Analysis – Three opinions obtained – In respect of disputed writings allegedly attributable to petitioner, expert unable to fix authorship – No conclusive linkage between petitioner and disputed signatures – Prosecution case weakened at threshold stage [Expert Reports dated 03.08.2020, 21.03.2023, 14.08.2023].

Charge Framing Stage – Test of Grave Suspicion – Court not to act as mere post office – If two views possible and one gives rise to suspicion only, accused entitled to discharge – Criminal law not to be set into motion as a matter of course – State must ensure reasonable prospect of conviction before prosecuting [Relied on P. Vijayan; M.E. Shivalingamurthy; Pepsi Foods Ltd.; Dilawar Balu Kurane; Tuhin Kumar Biswas].

Abuse of Process – Self-Contradictory Materials – Prosecution witnesses stated cheques encashed on instructions of Debashis Shome and amounts handed over to him – No material indicating wrongful gain by petitioner – Investigative materials inconsistent and insufficient to proceed to trial – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Discussion on C.S.W.7, 8, 10].

Judicial Responsibility – Filtering Weak Prosecutions – Filing of charge-sheets in absence of strong suspicion clogs judicial system – Courts must ensure only cases with strong suspicion proceed to trial – Protection of individual from unwarranted criminal trial emphasized [Tuhin Kumar Biswas, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2604].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – All further proceedings arising out of Ballygunge Police Station Case No. 145/18 dated 03.11.2018 quashed – Pending applications disposed of – Case diary directed to be returned.

Temporary Injunction – Specific Performance – Appeal From Order – Interference Warranted – Plaintiffs sought injunction restraining defendants from developing suit land pending suit for specific performance of agreements dated 10.02.2010 and MOU dated 26.02.2013 – Trial Court rejected injunction holding that MOU not executed by original landowners created no enforceable right – High Court set aside rejection holding approach of Trial Court parochial and unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 11, 15].

Agreement for Sale – Rights Prior to Formal Allotment – Not Purely Speculative – Original landowners received allotment proposal and LOI from CIDCO in 2007 – Subsequent agreements and MOU executed on basis of identified plot though corrigendum later substituted plot number – Held: Agreements could not be treated as speculative merely because physical allotment was completed later in 2022 [Paras 3, 7–9, 12–13].

Payments of Consideration – Prima Facie Proof – Conduct of Parties – Plaintiffs prima facie established payment of ₹3.12 crores to original landowners and intermediary defendants over long period through bank records – Denial by original landowners held prima facie untenable when receipt reflected in bank statements and admitted by intermediary defendants – Conduct of landowners found highly questionable [Paras 8, 11–12, 14].

MOU Executed by Intermediaries – Creation of Third-Party Rights – Agreement dated 10.02.2010 expressly permitted intermediary defendants to create third-party rights – MOU dated 26.02.2013 executed pursuant thereto – Held: Absence of signatures of original landowners on MOU not fatal at interim stage when they accepted benefits under arrangement [Paras 8, 11–12].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Due Diligence – Failure – Contesting respondents claimed protection as bona fide purchasers under Tripartite Agreement of 2023 – Court held that no due diligence was shown to have been conducted before entering transaction – Rights of subsequent purchasers could not override prior equitable rights of plaintiffs at prima facie stage [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss – Plaintiffs established strong prima facie case based on substantial payments and contractual framework – Balance of convenience held in favour of plaintiffs who paid large consideration – Irreparable harm likely if construction or third-party rights created pending suit [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Appeal From Order allowed – Order rejecting injunction set aside – Application for temporary injunction allowed – Status quo to continue – Defendant Nos.19 and 20 restrained from dealing with suit land until disposal of suit.

Arbitration Law – Review Jurisdiction – Scope – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review applications filed against dismissal of Section 34 petitions – Ground urged that Court failed to consider Supreme Court judgment in Maula Bux v. Union of India – Held: Review jurisdiction is extremely narrow – Failure to expressly refer to a judgment does not constitute error apparent when legal position has otherwise been considered – Review akin to “ant-hole in a pigeon-hole” when original jurisdiction itself is limited [Paras 11, 19].

Contract Law – Liquidated Damages – Section 74 Contract Act – Proof of Loss – Lease deed containing lock-in period clause stipulating payment of 100% rent for remaining lock-in period on premature termination – Clause held to be genuine pre-estimate of damages and not penalty – Once legal injury or breach established, proof of actual loss not mandatory where compensation stipulated is reasonable – Mere absence of proof of loss not fatal [Paras 8, 15–17].

Precedents – Fateh Chand – Maula Bux – ONGC v. Saw Pipes – Harmonious Application – Maula Bux does not dilute principle in Fateh Chand – Distinction between cases where loss is capable of proof and cases where it is difficult or impossible – Supreme Court in ONGC v. Saw Pipes clarified that where liquidated damages are genuine pre-estimate, claimant need not prove actual loss – Earlier judgments considered and correctly applied [Paras 7, 9, 13–14].

Section 34 Proceedings – Limited Judicial Interference – Court reiterated that in Section 34 jurisdiction, re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of plausible alternative view is impermissible – Arbitral award upholding liquidated damages clause found to be within permissible legal framework – No perversity or patent illegality established [Paras 15, 17].

Lease Agreement – Lock-in Period – Commercial Reality – Lessor had customized premises as per lessee’s requirements and property could not be re-let due to registered lease reflecting in encumbrance records – Loss and legal injury established on facts – Pre-estimated compensation found reasonable and enforceable [Paras 16–17].

Decision – Review Applications dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Common order dated 08.10.2025 upheld – No costs [Para 20].

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Permit Violation – Absence of Permit – Breach of Policy – Insurance Company Liability – Claimant sustained grievous injuries while working as cleaner in offending truck – Accident occurred in State of Madhya Pradesh – Evidence on record (Ex.D-7, Ex.D-9) showed permit authorised vehicle only for Delhi, U.P., Rajasthan and Haryana – No permit to ply vehicle in State of M.P. – Held: Plying vehicle without permit amounts to clear violation of Section 66 M.V. Act and breach of insurance policy conditions [Paras 12–15].

Insurance Law – Burden of Proof – Breach of Permit Conditions – Insurance company discharged initial burden by examining its officer and producing permit verification documents – Claimant himself admitted in cross-examination that vehicle had no permit for State of M.P. – Owner and driver remained ex parte and failed to rebut defence – Onus shifted to owner to prove valid permit, not discharged – Breach established [Paras 13–14].

Insurance Policy – Compliance with Motor Vehicles Act – Policy issued subject to Chapters X and XI of M.V. Act – Requirement of permit under Section 66 read with Section 158 M.V. Act is mandatory – Insurance company not required to specifically mention permit condition when policy incorporates statutory compliance – Violation disentitles insured from indemnification [Paras 14–17].

Supreme Court Precedents – Route / Area Violation – Gohar Mohammed v. UPSRTC – K. Nagendra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Vehicle being plied beyond authorised route/area exonerates insurer from liability – However, to balance interests of third-party victim, pay and recover principle to be applied [Paras 15–18].

Third Party Claims – Pay and Recover – Though insurer not liable due to breach of policy conditions, claimant being third party cannot be denied compensation – Held: Insurance company directed to first satisfy award and thereafter recover amount from owner/driver of offending vehicle [Paras 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Finding of Claims Tribunal fastening liability on insurance company set aside – Insurance company held not liable due to absence of permit – However, insurer directed to pay awarded compensation to claimant and recover same from owner/driver – Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Appeal – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Sole Eyewitness – Benefit of Doubt – Accused convicted by Sessions Court under Sections 302 and 324 IPC for causing death of deceased by hitting with wooden rafter – Appeal against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment – Prosecution case resting substantially on testimony of injured sole eyewitness (PW11) – High Court reappreciates evidence and finds prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1–3, 50].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Credibility – Intoxicated Witness – Inconsistencies – PW11 claimed to have witnessed assault and also sustained injuries – Her first version before doctor naming another assailant (Albin) materially inconsistent with later court testimony implicating accused – Admitted consumption of alcohol and repeated inability to recollect material facts – Witness not of “sterling quality” as required in law – Unsafe to base conviction solely on such testimony [Paras 12–14, 36–42].

Medical Evidence vs Ocular Testimony – Contradictions – PW11 alleged repeated assault, dragging, fainting and loss of consciousness – Medical evidence disclosed only simple injuries with no indication of concussion or prolonged unconsciousness – Medical evidence rendering ocular version improbable – Ocular evidence disbelieved to that extent [Paras 36, 41–42].

Investigation – Delay in Recording Statements – Effect – Statement of crucial eyewitness not recorded immediately though she allegedly approached police next day – FIR registered on information given by PW1 instead of injured eyewitness – Statements of material witnesses recorded after unexplained delay of several days – Delay creating serious doubt of embellishment and afterthought [Paras 43–45].

Investigation Lapses – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Non-recovery of Evidence – Prosecution failed to examine independent witness (Shaji) to whom PW11 allegedly narrated incident – Bloodstained clothes of injured eyewitness not seized or sent for forensic examination – Serious gaps in evidentiary chain weakening prosecution case [Paras 46–47].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Suspicion vs Proof – Reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court convicted accused on surmises and conjectures without proper evaluation of evidence – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 48–50].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.