Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Section 50 - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 4(2) - Succession to agricultural land - Plaintiff daughter sought partition of agricultural land claiming share as Class-I heir of her father who died intestate in November 2002 - Defendants filed application for rejection of plaint contending the suit is barred by Section 50 DLR Act as succession opened prior to 2005 HSA amendment - High Court observed that at the time of death in 2002 the land was agricultural and governed by the DLR Act - Section 4(2) HSA specifically saved provisions of local laws relating to the devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings until its omission in 2005 - Amendment to HSA in 2005 has prospective application and cannot disturb successions that opened prior to 09-09-2005 - Succession crystallized in favor of male lineal descendants in 2002 under Section 50 DLR Act - Subsequent urbanization of the village in 2017 or acquisition of land in 2016 cannot unsettle the settled legal position at the time succession opened - Held - Plaint does not disclose a cause of action and is barred by law - Application allowed and plaint rejected - [Paras 1-50].

Civil Law - Succession - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Section 50 - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 4(2) - Prospective application of amendment - The rule of succession contained in Section 50 DLR Act is protected for successions opening before the 2005 amendment of HSA - Rights of descendants crystallize on the date of death of the Bhumidhar - Deletion of Section 4(2) HSA does not have retrospective effect by virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act - Held - Daughter has no right to succeed to Bhumidhari land where male lineal descendants are available and succession opened in 2002 - [Paras 19-33].

Civil Law - Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 4 and Order VII Rule 11 - Hindu Undivided Family - Material facts - Plaintiff made bald assertion that property was part of an HUF and father was Karta - No specific averments provided regarding the date of creation of HUF or how the property became HUF property - Post-1956 there is no presumption that inheritance of ancestral property creates an HUF - Specific pleadings are a sine qua non to establish a cause of action for partition of HUF property - Mere ipse dixit or clever drafting to create an illusory cause of action is insufficient - Held - Plaint bereft of material facts regarding HUF fails to disclose a cause of action - [Paras 34-47].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint rejected – Suit and pending applications stand disposed of.

Writ Law - Regulatory Competence - Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 - Sections 11 and 36 - Quality of Service - Challenge to 12-minute per clock hour advertisement cap (10 minutes commercial plus 2 minutes self-promotional) - Petitioners comprising general entertainment channels news broadcasters and regional channels assailed Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Network Rules 1994 and Regulation 3 of the 2012 Quality of Service Regulations - Primary grievance directed at the per clock hour computation rather than the 12-minute limit itself - Petitioners contended that TRAI lacked jurisdiction to regulate content-related aspects like advertisement duration - Court examined the 2004 notification expanding the definition of telecommunication service to include broadcasting - Court held that the mandate to lay down standards of Quality of Service (QoS) is not narrow or technical but encompasses all facets shaping consumer experience - Excessive commercial intrusion directly impairs the right of consumers to a fair viewing experience - TRAI acted within its statutory authority to ensure QoS and protect consumer interests - Held - Regulation 3 falls within the statutory competence of TRAI - [Paras 1-37].

Constitutional Law - Directive Principles - Constitution of India - Articles 31C and 39 - Public Trust Doctrine - Spectrum as a scarce public resource - Petitioners claimed the advertisement cap violates Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) - State contended that airwaves are public property and their use must be regulated in public interest - Court applied the Public Trust Doctrine - Spectrum constitutes a scarce and finite natural resource vesting in the people with the State acting as a trustee - Article 39(b) and (c) mandate equitable distribution of material resources to subserve the common good and prevent concentration of wealth - Measures preventing excessive commercial exploitation of broadcast spectrum effectuate these principles - Article 31C provides a safe harbour to laws giving effect to DPSP from challenges under Articles 14 and 19 - Held - The impugned regulations have a rational nexus to the constitutional mandate of ensuring public resources are used for the common good and thus attract protection under Article 31C - [Paras 38-63].

Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Business - Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) - Commercial Speech - Reasonable Restrictions - Petitioners relied on print media precedents to argue that restrictions on advertisement revenue indirectly impact editorial freedom and circulation - Court distinguished between print media and broadcasting - Print media uses private resources while broadcasting utilizes public airwaves - Distinction necessitates a licensing and authorization regime - Loss of advertising revenue falls within Article 19(1)(g) rather than the core of Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom to conduct business is not a guarantee of a particular level of profit - The 12-minute cap is a neutral time-based limit that does not prohibit content - Cap is consistent with international practices and serves general public interest - Held - The restriction is a reasonable limitation under Article 19(6) and does not infringe the fundamental rights of broadcasters - [Paras 64-88].

Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Intelligible Differentia - Manifest Arbitrariness - Challenge on grounds that the cap fails to distinguish between prime time and non-prime time or different channel genres - Court applied the five-fold framework of non-arbitrariness - Uniform ceiling rests on an intelligible structural distinction between programme content and advertising time - Framework ensures a baseline entitlement for all viewers irrespective of channel genre - Fixation of ceiling informed by consultative processes and consumer concerns - Regulatory choice in economic matters is outside the scope of judicial review unless shown to be capricious - Held - Regulations are not discriminatory or manifestly arbitrary - [Paras 73-80].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Rule 7(11) of the 1994 Rules and Regulation 3 of the 2012 Regulations (as amended in 2013) held constitutionally valid.

Civil Law - Procedure - Family Courts Act 1984 - [Not stated in judgment] - Restoration of application - Revision petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application C.M.P No. 2/2024 which was filed to restore an earlier petition to set aside an ex-parte order - The Family Court dismissed the application on the technical ground that the prayer was to set aside the order dated 30.08.2024 instead of explicitly seeking restoration - The High Court held that the nomenclature of the relief sought should not have been the primary focus of the lower court while ignoring the actual purpose sought to be achieved by the petitioner - Held - The decision of the lower court to dismiss the petition on purely technical grounds cannot be justified - Order set aside - [Paras 1-5].

Civil Law - Maintenance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - [Not stated in judgment] - Conditional Restoration - Petitioner sought to set aside an ex-parte maintenance order directing payment of Rs 8000 per month - High Court observed that huge arrears were due to the respondent wife and further procrastination would cause hardship - As a pre-condition for the restoration of the petition to set aside the ex-parte order the Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 200000 out of the arrears within two months - Held - Restoration of C.M.P No. 1/2024 directed subject to the condition of partial deposit of arrears to balance the interests of both parties - [Paras 2-5].

Decision: Revision petition allowed in part – Order of Family Court in C.M.P No. 2/2024 set aside subject to petitioner depositing Rs 200000 within two months – Family Court directed to restore and decide C.M.P No. 1/2024 on merits upon compliance – Execution proceedings in M.C No. 289/2022 stayed for two months.

Writ Law - Banking Fraud - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Letters Patent Appeal by State Bank of India challenging Single Judge order - Respondent No 1 fell victim to cyber fraud after clicking a suspicious link leading to unauthorized withdrawal of Rs 260000 - Banking Ombudsman ordered partial payment of Rs 33340 - Single Judge set aside Ombudsman order and directed bank to pay full amount with 9 percent interest - Division Bench found that the transactions were secured by Two-Factor Authentication and OTP delivery - Held - Issues regarding whether credentials were compromised by malware or voluntary disclosure are disputed questions of fact requiring forensic examination - Writ Court cannot presume deficiency in service without technical evidence - Appeal allowed and impugned judgment set aside - [Paras 1-20].

Civil Law - Customer Negligence - RBI Master Circular dated 06 July 2017 - Clause 6 and Clause 7 - Liability in unauthorized electronic banking transactions - Respondent No 1 clicked a link from unknown source prior to transactions - Bank sent OTPs and SMS alerts - Single Judge held customer was not negligent as he denied sharing OTPs - Held - The expression such as where he has shared the payment credentials in Clause 7(i) is illustrative and not exhaustive - Interacting with suspicious links exposing banking credentials to misuse constitutes negligence - Liability for loss rests with the customer until reporting to the bank - [Paras 9.1-13].

Writ Law - Scope of Jurisdiction - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Challenge to Banking Ombudsman order - Bench examined if Single Judge was justified in fastening liability for cyber fraud - Held - Inquiry under Article 226 must confine to manifest arbitrariness or procedural infirmity - Matters requiring technical and forensic adjudication on evidence should not be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction - Reliance on Tony Enterprises distinguished as that case involved established police investigation of SIM swapping - [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of the Single Judge dated 18.11.2024 set aside – Banking Ombudsman order dated 20.10.2021 restored.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Appellant Pravesh and three others intercepted deceased on bicycle due to land dispute litigation since 1972 - Accused assaulted deceased with sticks and knives resulting in homicidal death - Trial Court convicted appellants for life imprisonment - Surviving appellant Pravesh challenged conviction on grounds of false implication and discrepancies in eye-witness testimony - High Court found motive established through civil litigation records and defense witness admissions - Testimony of father and brother-in-law of deceased found consistent regarding date-time-place and manner of incident - Held - Conviction of appellant affirmed - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-105].

Evidence Law - Quality of Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 134 - Non-examination of material witness - Prosecution did not examine cited witness Rohtash who submitted application stating reluctance to testify due to relationship with both parties - Defense argued adverse inference under Section 114 - Court held that it is quality and not quantity of evidence that matters - Conviction can be based on solitary reliable witness - Omission not fatal when other eye-witnesses are trustworthy - Held - Non-examination of one witness does not weaken the prosecution case when unfolding of narrative is complete through other witnesses - [Paras 47-55].

Criminal Law - Inquest Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 174 - Signatures of eye-witnesses - Appellant contended eye-witnesses were not present as they did not sign inquest report or recovery memos - Court held that scope of Section 174 is limited to ascertaining apparent cause of death and not to name assailants or record eye-witness details - Inquest report is not substantive evidence - Non-mention of names or lack of signatures of eye-witnesses on such reports cannot be ground to reject ocular testimony - Held - Eye-witness testimony cannot be discarded for lack of signatures on police papers - [Paras 68-70].

Evidence Law - Ocular vs Medical Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Compatibility - Defense argued fractures on head could not be caused by knives - Autopsy surgeon found incised wounds bone-deep with underlying fractures - Court observed that heavy blows with sharp-edged weapons like knives can cause fractures - No inconsistency found between nature of injuries and weapons assigned to accused - Held - Medical evidence fully corroborates eye-witness account - [Paras 24-98].

Evidence Law - Related Witness - Credibility - Testimony of father and brother-in-law - Defense argued witnesses were related and interested - Court held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility as a relative would not typically shield the real culprit to rope in an innocent person - Ocular testimony found consistent despite extensive cross-examination spanning months - Held - Evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded if it inspires confidence - [Paras 66-67].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of surviving appellant Pravesh under Section 302/34 IPC and Arms Act affirmed – Appellant to serve remaining part of sentence.

Writ Law - Service Matter - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Discrimination in grant of relaxation - Petitioner a 1991-Batch IAS officer challenged the rejection of his empanelment as Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India - Rejection was based on the failure to meet the minimum three-year central deputation experience at the level of Deputy Secretary and above - Petitioner produced evidence of 20 other IAS officers with nil central experience who were granted relaxation and empaneled - Central Administrative Tribunal held that the rule could not be relaxed and dismissed the original application - High Court observed that the Union of India had repeatedly exercised its jurisdiction to relax the eligibility condition for others while denying it to the petitioner without any valid or differentiating reason - Held - The non-exercise of the power of relaxation in favour of the petitioner while granting it to similarly situated officers constitutes hostile discrimination and violates the principle of equality under the Constitution - Writ petition allowed - [Paras 1-16].

Writ Law - Service Matter - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Benefit of Parity - Future Prospects - Petitioner retired during the pendency of the litigation - Respondents argued that the petition was rendered infructuous - Petitioner contended that empanelment is a preferred requirement for various post-retirement assignments and its absence renders him less meritorious - Held - Although the petitioner cannot be brought on deputation now due to retirement the respondents are directed to treat him as empaneled at the level of Additional Secretary/Secretary on equal footing with other similarly situated officers for the purpose of consideration for future assignments only - [Paras 8-17].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be treated as empaneled as Additional Secretary/Secretary with the Government of India for consideration of future assignments only.

Criminal Law - Cruelty and Dowry Harassment - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of Proceedings - Applicants-in-laws challenged the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings for offences including Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act - Complainant alleged she was subjected to cruelty for additional dowry of five lakhs and landed property - Allegations included physical assault and retention of stridhan by the mother-in-law - Applicants contended that the FIR was a retaliatory counterblast to a prior divorce petition and criminal complaint filed by the husband - Reliance was placed on a handwritten note where the complainant allegedly stated she left the matrimonial home voluntarily - Court observed that the authenticity of the note and the medical evidence regarding injuries were disputed questions of fact - Held - High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing under Section 482 - Prima facie allegations exist against the applicants that require trial - Application dismissed - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Scope of Jurisdiction - Stage of Quashing - High Court is only required to consider whether sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused - Jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations as if conducting a trial - Even if an FIR appears to be a counterblast to earlier proceedings such an aspect cannot be conclusively determined at this stage when adjudication requires appreciation of evidence - Held - Power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the process of the court - [Paras 17-20].

Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 406 - Ingredients - Entrustment of Property - Applicants argued that the essential ingredients of Section 406 were not met as allegations of stridhan retention were general - Court noted specific allegations against the mother-in-law regarding non-return of stridhan and administering harmful medicine - Reliance placed on precedent that the gist of the offence is dishonest misappropriation - Held - Whether the retention was dishonest or if misappropriation occurred are matters for trial when prima facie material is collected during investigation - [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Application dismissed – No interference warranted at the stage of charge-sheet as allegations require examination through trial – Trial Court to proceed as per earlier directions.

Criminal Law - Sentence Modification - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 307 read with Section 34 - Attempt to Murder - Appellants Saghir Ahmad and Mohammad Iliyas convicted in 1985 for an incident occurring in 1981 - Trial court awarded five years rigorous imprisonment - During the pendency of the appeal the injured informant Smt Dharmi Devi moved a compromise application in 1986 stating that injuries were minor and received under pressure of local police - Compromise was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Azamgarh in 1993 - Appellants are currently octogenarians and senior citizens - Matter has been pending for nearly forty-five years since the incident - Prosecution case involved fire opened by Iliyas resulting in gunshot injury to Smt Dharmi Devi during a village marriage party - High Court noted the long passage of time and the reformative nature of punishment in India - Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents favoring the reduction of sentence to the period undergone in old cases involving elderly convicts - Held - Conviction maintained but sentence modified to the period already undergone - [Paras 1-22].

Criminal Law - Sentencing Policy - Reformative Justice - Proportionality - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 374 - Court observed that the law of punishment in India is reformative and not corporeal - Sending eighty-year-old appellants to jail after forty-one years of conviction would not serve the basic principles of law - Sentencing must be just adequate and proportionate to the gravity of the offence - Undue sympathy is harmful but sending senior citizens to serve a remaining sentence after a long lapse of time is not justified - High Court exercised judicial discretion to balance the ends of justice with the specific circumstances of the case - Held - Judicious and purposeful punishment requires modification of sentence to the period undergone - [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Substantive sentence modified to the period already undergone – Bail bonds and sureties discharged.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406, 420 and 120B - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Foreign Direct Investment - Petitioner news portal challenged FIR and ECIR alleging illegal FDI through share overvaluation and siphoning of funds - Complainant alleged FDI was structured to bypass 26 percent cap and used for non-business payments - Petitioner argued no FDI cap existed for digital media in 2018 and share valuation followed Discounted Cash Flow method under FEMA - High Court found that the investor never complained of cheating and no public money was involved - Investigation by EOW showed initial RBI reply confirmed no FEMA violation - Court held that ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were missing as no entrustment or fraudulent induction was established - Held - Continuation of FIR and ECIR would be gross abuse of process of law - FIR and ECIR quashed - [Paras 1-132].

Criminal Law - Money Laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Scheduled Offence - Dependency of ECIR on Predicate Offence - ED registered ECIR based on FIR alleging proceeds of crime from illegal FDI - High Court analyzed the interplay between the predicate offence and money laundering proceedings - Following the ratio in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary - the Court observed that PMLA authorities cannot act on an assumption that property is proceeds of crime unless a scheduled offence is registered and subsisting - Held - If the person named in the criminal activity is finally absolved or the criminal case for the scheduled offence is quashed - there can be no action for money laundering - Since the FIR for the predicate offence was quashed for failing to disclose any cognizable offence - the ECIR cannot stand alone and is also quashed - [Paras 127-130].

Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 120B - Allegation of connivance - ED claimed conspiracy existed between the Petitioner and foreign entities to bring funds into India under the automatic route - Held - Mere agreement between parties is insufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy unless the ED shows an illegal objective or illegal means - No material on record substantiated the commission of an illegal act - Conspiracy is a substantive offence but requires a meeting of minds for an unlawful purpose which was absent in the present commercial transaction - [Paras 103-105, 124-125].

Evidence Law - Investigative Reports - Contradictory Status Reports - EOW filed two status reports where the second report omitted earlier references to an RBI reply exonerating the Petitioner from FEMA violations - Held - The exclusion of the RBI reply in the second report without explanation appeared to be an attempt to obfuscate the absence of a cognizable offence - Court relied on the initial findings that indicated compliance with extant FEMA regulations - [Paras 53-57, 77-78].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – FIR No. 0116/2020 and ECIR/14/HIU/2020 quashed – W.P. (Crl.) No. 1129/2021 disposed of as infructuous.