Public Procurement – Bid Submission Failure – Display of Incomplete Bids – Rule 19 KTPP Rules – Re-submission Attempt After Corrigendum – Petitioner submitted bids on 25.09.2024 and re-submitted revised bids on 27.09.2024 – Cancelled bids again on 30.09.2024 intending to upload final corrections, but failed to re-submit before deadline (17:30 hrs, 30.09.2024) – Alleged non-compliance with Rule 19 in not showing bids as “DRAFT” – Held: Petitioner’s cancelled bids were correctly shown as “DRAFTS” on the portal – No procedural impropriety found – Incomplete bids rightly excluded from evaluation [Paras 11.1–11.5]

Judicial Review – Procedural Irregularity – Locus After Dismissal of Earlier Petition – Abuse of Process – Petitioner previously challenged corrigendum and failed – Present petitions relate to alleged exclusion of bids due to portal failure – Held: Issue of bid status as DRAFT not considered earlier – Petitioner has locus – However, failure to upload revised bids before deadline is attributable to petitioner’s own conduct – No relief warranted [Paras 10.1–10.4, 11.6]

Tender Law – Onus on Bidder – Last Date and Time Compliance – Rule 15(4)(b) – Statutory obligation lies on tenderers to ensure bid submission within time – System required bid cancellation before corrections, which petitioner failed to re-submit – Held: Bid remained incomplete – Incomplete bid cannot be considered for evaluation [Para 11.6]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – No violation of Rule 19 of KTPP Rules found – Petitioner failed to re-submit corrected bids before cut-off – Bids remained incomplete (DRAFT) and were validly excluded – No costs.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Maintainability – Plaintiffs sought injunction against use of residential flats as dental clinic and for removal of encroachments – Petitioners claimed suit was barred by law, devoid of cause of action and amounted to abuse of court process – Trial Court rejected application – Held: Disputed facts regarding zoning, nature of use, and character of building cannot be resolved at threshold stage – No case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 6-7, 10]

Town Planning – Mixed Use Zoning – Commercial Activity in Residential Complex – Petitioners relied on mixed zone classification to justify dental clinic use – Court held that mixed zoning does not imply all buildings can be commercially used – Nature of building and permitted use to be established through evidence – Whether flats are residential or hybrid-use is a triable issue [Para 7]

Medical Practice in Residential Premises – Entire Residential Unit Converted to Clinic – Petitioners cited right of doctors to run clinics from home – Court distinguished facts – Held: Use of entire flat as clinic without residence amounts to commercial use – Protection limited to partial use of residence for professional practice – Not applicable here [Para 8]

Res Judicata – Prior Writ Proceedings – Petitioners contended that suit was barred due to earlier writ petition on same issue – Court noted writ petition only sought disposal of representation and did not address merits – Held: Present suit not barred by res judicata or re-litigation [Para 9]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – No error in Trial Court's refusal to reject plaint – No costs – Connected CMP also dismissed.

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Due Diligence Test – Scope and Applicability – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 inserted by 2002 Amendment does not have universal application to every amendment sought after commencement of trial – Court holds that applicability of due diligence test depends on nature of amendment sought and surrounding circumstances – Plain and rigid application of proviso would defeat main provision which retains phrase “at any stage of the proceedings” – Held: Proviso has limited role and cannot control main provision in all post-trial amendment applications [Paras 13–17, 29–31, 59–61].

Amendment After Commencement of Trial – Subsequent Events – Relief of Possession – Plaintiffs sought amendment 10 years after suit and post commencement of trial to plead dispossession during pendency of suit and seek possession – Such amendment based on subsequent events falls within recognised category where due diligence test need not strictly apply – Held: Amendment necessary to decide real controversy and avoid multiplicity of litigation [Paras 25(c), 25(d), 35–36].

Object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Avoidance of Multiplicity of Litigation – Main object of Rule 17 remains determination of real questions in controversy and avoidance of multiple proceedings – Proviso intended only to curb mala fide or dilatory amendments – Liberal construction still applies in deserving cases – Procedural law to be interpreted to advance justice [Paras 18–23, 31–33].

Delay in Seeking Amendment – Limitation – Delay of 10 years from filing of suit not fatal – Relevant test is whether relief sought by amendment is barred by limitation on date of application – Amendment seeking possession held within limitation under Articles 64 or 65 of Limitation Act – Mere length of delay cannot be sole ground for rejection [Paras 37–42].

Amendment Contrary to Admission – Effect – Amendment allegedly contrary to admission in cross-examination regarding date of dispossession – Court not required to examine merits or correctness of proposed amendment at amendment stage – Admission not conclusive and can be explained during trial – Amendment does not nullify admission; issue remains matter of evidence [Paras 43–49].

Nature of Suit – Change of Relief – Change from declaration and injunction to declaration and possession does not amount to change in nature of suit – Change in relief distinct from change in cause of action – Basic structure of suit remains intact – Amendment permissible even if relief changes, provided foundational facts remain same [Paras 50–56].

Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Even where due diligence test not satisfied, Court can invoke inherent powers to permit amendment in interest of justice to prevent abuse of process – Procedural provisions cannot limit inherent powers of Court [Para 34].

Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226 and 227 – Trial Court erred in treating proviso as absolute bar and in rejecting amendment mechanically on ground of delay and commencement of trial – Interference warranted to correct jurisdictional error [Paras 62–63].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 06.09.2025 rejecting amendment application set aside – Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.7,000/- by plaintiffs – Defendants permitted to file additional written statement – Issue of date of dispossession left open to be decided on evidence.

Criminal Law -  NDPS Act – Illegal Possession – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Section 15 NDPS Act for alleged possession of 160 kg poppy husk – Conviction based solely on official witness testimonies – Independent witness not examined – No written compliance or communication to superior officer under Section 42(2) – No production of case property before Magistrate proven – Held: Prosecution failed to establish compliance with mandatory statutory provisions – Testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 found inconsistent and unreliable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 18–35].

NDPS Act – Section 42 Violation – Secret information received by police was not reduced to writing nor communicated to superior officer within 72 hours – No explanation offered for non-compliance – Such procedural lapse held fatal to prosecution case – Supreme Court decisions in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj followed – Recovery held suspicious [Paras 19–24].

NDPS Act – Link Evidence and Tampering – Failure to prove production of sealed case property before Magistrate – Seal retained by officer conducting seizure – Crucial link witness (ASI Ranjit Singh) not examined and no alternative proof provided – Absence of DDR entries and unexplained gaps raise possibility of tampering – Held: Break in chain of custody rendered recovery doubtful [Paras 27–30].

Witness Testimony – Official Witness Credibility – Contradictions in deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding duration of presence, location, and process – Non-joining of independent witnesses despite availability – Failure to examine sole claimed eyewitness – Held: Prosecution version suffers from fatal contradictions and lack of corroboration – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 26, 32–34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 15 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 35].

Matrimonial Law – Anti-Suit Injunction – Divorce Proceedings – Foreign Court Jurisdiction – Indian trial court granted ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting divorce and maintenance proceedings in UK Family Court – Held: Principle of forum non conveniens cannot be invoked by Indian court to restrain proceedings in a foreign court – Jurisdictional challenge must be addressed by the UK Court itself – Both spouses had deep-rooted residential and financial ties with the UK – Respondent-husband’s claims of inconvenience held to be untenable [Paras 35-44]

Private International Law – Competence of Foreign Court – UK Family Court – Wife residing in the UK since 2015 and instituted proceedings in UK under UK law – UK court's competence under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973 already under adjudication by the UK Court itself – Indian court must defer to such determination – Even under Hindu Marriage Act, territorial jurisdiction principles could prima facie support UK jurisdiction based on wife’s residence and last place of cohabitation [Paras 45-53]

Foreign Judgments – Section 13 CPC – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Whether ground recognized under Indian Law – Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita held that irretrievable breakdown may constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA – Ratio forms binding precedent under Article 141 – Distinguished from Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, which did not overrule Rakesh Raman – UK proceeding not necessarily founded on refusal to recognize Indian law [Paras 54-62]

Comity of Courts – Respect for Foreign Proceedings – Indian court’s interference with valid maintenance order passed by UK court violates principle of comity – UK court had already fixed the matter for jurisdictional adjudication and stayed its own proceedings – Premature for Indian court to restrain UK proceedings through anti-suit injunction [Paras 63-71]

Civil Procedure – Section 10 CPC – Non-Applicability to Foreign Suits – Mere earlier filing of divorce suit by husband in India not sufficient to justify anti-suit injunction – Section 10 CPC applies only where both suits are in Indian courts – No authority for Indian court to stay a foreign proceeding [Para 76]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned anti-suit injunction order dated 01/11/2025 set aside – Respondent's plea for stay of judgment rejected – Observations made are tentative and will not prejudice either party in Indian or UK proceedings [Paras 76-79]

Civil Law – Decree on Admissions – Partition Suit – Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by appellant seeking summary decree of partition and rental income – Defendants had abandoned defence of oral family settlement and filed relinquishment deeds – High Court held that such documents did not amount to unequivocal admissions – No clear pleading regarding title in plaint – Significant factual disputes existed as to title, area of property, shares, heirs, and income – Held: Summary decree rightly denied – Full trial warranted [Paras 2, 15–22].

Partition – Requirement of Proof of Title – Plaintiff failed to plead title documents of parents from whom rights claimed – Prior judicial finding that plaintiff had not established that suit properties were part of intestate estate had attained finality – Relinquishment deeds of some defendants did not establish complete or uncontested ownership by parents – Held: In absence of foundational title pleadings, decree on admission cannot be granted [Paras 10, 15–18].

Admissions – Legal Standard – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Admissions must be unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional – Partition suits require detailed evidence on title, possession, and shares – Where disputes exist as to size of property, status of heirs, and rental income, matter not suitable for summary adjudication – Held: Appellant failed to demonstrate requisite admissions for decree [Paras 18–21].

Procedural Relief – Liberty to File Fresh Application – While dismissing appeal, Court granted liberty to file fresh and specific application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC if clear and unqualified admissions are identified – Any such application to be considered by learned Single Judge independently [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC declined – Appellant granted liberty to file a more detailed application identifying specific and unequivocal admissions – All pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24–26].

Criminal Law – Sections 279, 338, 304A  IPC - Motor Vehicle Accident – Acquittal – State appealed against the acquittal of respondent who was accused of causing death of two persons and injury to another due to rash and negligent driving – Prosecution alleged that respondent was driving an uninsured motorcycle that first collided with the injured’s motorcycle and then with the victims' – Trial court found no direct evidence proving rashness or negligence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: PW-1 (injured eyewitness) admitted he fell unconscious after the impact and had no memory of events thereafter – FIR was based on a statement prepared by the IO and not dictated by the injured himself – No independent evidence proving manner of driving – Legal presumption under res ipsa loquitur held inapplicable due to lack of corroborative facts – No error in granting benefit of doubt [Paras 23-36].

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – PW-1 claimed to have seen the accused and described the vehicle as coming at high speed – In cross-examination, admitted unconsciousness and confirmed he had no recollection of how the accident occurred – Also stated that he signed a pre-prepared complaint by IO – MLC stated he remembered nothing – Identity of accused as rider not disputed, but rashness/negligence remained unproven – Site plan failed to clarify collision sequence – Thus, eyewitness testimony held insufficient to establish guilt [Paras 25, 28-30, 33-34].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Legal Threshold – High Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible only when findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Trial Court had rightly assessed lack of credible and consistent testimony – Held: Mere occurrence of accident or tragic outcome cannot substitute for proof of offence – Acquittal justified in absence of cogent evidence [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – No interference warranted with trial court’s findings.

Service Law – Pay Protection – Ex-Servicemen – Discrimination among Constables appointed from same recruitment list – Violation of Article 14 – All respondents were ex-servicemen selected under the same 2018 recruitment list – Due to COVID-19 related constraints, training was conducted in four separate batches and appointments staggered – Only the first batch received pay protection while others were denied – Held: All candidates formed a homogeneous group as per the same advertisement and selection process – No intelligible differentia existed to justify differential treatment – Administrative exigencies like pandemic or infrastructure constraints cannot be grounds for hostile discrimination – Judgment of learned single-judge granting parity upheld [Paras 3, 5, 15-25].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Permissible Classification – Select list cannot be fragmented for pay or service benefits based on training schedule imposed by the State – Training is not part of the selection process but follows appointment under Rule 18 – Discrimination based on batch-wise training lacks rational nexus with the object of selection and violates equality before law [Paras 13, 16-20].

Recruitment – Service Benefits – Uniform Entitlements – No statutory rule authorizes different treatment in pay protection within the same select list – Court reiterates principles from Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar – Entire class entitled to uniform benefits including pay protection [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Special Appeals dismissed – Judgment of single-judge affirmed – State directed to grant pay protection and consequential benefits to all affected candidates within twelve weeks [Para 26].

Service Law – Regularization – Contractual Appointment – Petitioners selected through a proper selection process in 2011 and working continuously as ECG Technicians for 15 years – Government created four posts in 2014 on recommendation of competent authority – Instead of regularizing petitioners, State issued open advertisement in 2015 – Held: Petitioners' appointment, though irregular, not illegal – Petitioners have right to be absorbed against created posts – Delay in regularization amounts to unfair labour practice [Paras 8–19]

Unfair Labour Practice – Industrial Disputes Act – Petitioners engaged in permanent, technical posts in SCB Medical College and Hospital – Continued for years as contractual workers despite sanctioned posts – Held: Employer’s action falls within Item 10 of Fifth Schedule of ID Act – Continuing workmen as temporary to deny regular status constitutes unfair labour practice [Paras 14–17]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Judicial Review – High Court found that Single Judge erred in merely directing consideration of representation when clear recommendations and creation of posts were on record – Petitioners’ right to regularization established – Writ of mandamus issued for absorption and service benefits [Paras 18–20]

Decision: W.A. No.3071 of 2023 allowed – State directed to absorb appellants against sanctioned posts of ECG Technician and grant full service benefits within three months –

W.A. No.296 of 2025 filed by State dismissed.