Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Allegation of Venereal Disease – No Medical Evidence – Divorce Denied – Appellant alleged that respondent suffered from a communicable venereal disease but failed to provide diagnostic reports or subject her to medical examination – Ayurvedic records held insufficient – Held: Mere suspicion or stigma not enough; strict proof required under Section 13(1)(v) – No case made out for divorce on this ground [Paras 5–8].

Cruelty – Allegation of Watching Porn and Masturbation – No Proof – Divorce Denied – Appellant accused respondent of watching pornography and indulging in masturbation – Court held such conduct, unless proven to be directed towards petitioner or violating legal norms, does not constitute “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) – Also held: Self-pleasure falls within sexual autonomy and privacy of a spouse, not per se grounds for divorce [Paras 9–14].

Spousal Privacy and Autonomy – Progressive Interpretation – Individual Rights within Marriage Affirmed – Court emphasized that marriage does not extinguish individual sexual autonomy – Watching non-prohibited porn or indulging in private sexual behavior not inherently unlawful or cruel unless it harms the other spouse or the relationship directly [Paras 12–14].

False Allegations – Misuse of Grounds for Divorce – Allegations Not Substantiated – The appellant failed to prove that respondent’s conduct met the legal threshold of cruelty – Lack of corroboration, witnesses, or supporting evidence led to rejection of the case – Held: Divorce cannot be granted based on unverified accusations or moral judgment [Paras 10–11, 15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Divorce refused – Order of Family Court confirming restitution of conjugal rights upheld – Allegations found baseless and unsubstantiated – No costs; connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Para 15].
 

Bail – Rape – Promise to Marry – Absence of Misconception of Fact – The petitioner was accused of repeatedly engaging in sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant under the pretext of marriage and later refusing to marry her – The Court examined whether the alleged act constituted rape due to vitiation of consent – Held: In light of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921], sexual relations based on a promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it can be shown that the promise was false from the outset and was the sole reason for consent – Bail granted [Paras 8-9].

Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception – Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated the well-established principle that bail should be granted unless there are strong reasons to deny it – Referring to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870] and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Court emphasized that denying bail in deserving cases would violate Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: The petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and there were no compelling reasons to continue detention [Paras 10-11].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards Against Witness Intimidation and Flight Risk – The Court imposed stringent conditions, including restrictions on travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with the investigation – Held: Bail granted subject to strict compliance with conditions [Paras 12].

Decision: Bail granted. The petitioner shall be released on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer as required, non-interference with witnesses, restriction on foreign travel, and prohibition from committing similar offences. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to seek cancellation of bail in case of any violation of the conditions.

Criminal Law - Transition to BNSS – Interpretation of Section 531 – Date of Incident and FIR Crucial – Applications Maintainable Under CrPC Even If Filed After 01.07.2024 - High Court held that where the offence was committed and FIR registered prior to 01.07.2024, petitions filed under CrPC post this date are maintainable – Legislative intent and ejusdem generis rule support continuity of procedural remedies under repealed CrPC [Paras 1, 10, 19, 27, 35, 43(i)-(ii)].

Pre-Arrest Bail – No Absolute Bar Under Section 438(4) CrPC for Offences under Sections 376(3), 376AB, etc. – Court Clarifies - Held: Section 438(4) does not impose a complete bar; court may grant bail if prima facie case is not made out – Interim protection granted in such cases is not void ab initio [Paras 4, 15, 43(i)].

Ejusdem Generis Rule – Applied to Savings Clause in Section 531 BNSS – Wider Interpretation Permissible - Court used ejusdem generis to interpret “appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending” to include applications filed after 01.07.2024 in cases where FIR was under IPC – Avoided narrow reading to preserve legislative intent [Paras 32-35].

Conflicting Judgments Resolved – Reference Answered – Earlier Decision in Abhishek Jain’s Case Overruled - Bench disagreed with view in CRM-M-31808-2024 (Abhishek Jain) that post-01.07.2024 CrPC applications are non-maintainable – Upheld view in CRM-34396-2024 favoring maintainability of CrPC applications for offences committed before BNSS came into force [Paras 6, 16, 42].

Decision – Reference Answered – CrPC Applications Maintainable If FIR Registered Before 01.07.2024 – High Court ruled that the date of incident and FIR are determinative for applying CrPC even after BNSS came into force – All judicial officers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh directed to apply this interpretation [Paras 42-45].

Education Law - Grant-in-Aid – Repeal of GIA Order, 1994 – No Vested Right to Apply Post-Repeal – Tribunal Orders Partially Set Aside – Court held: In terms of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anup Kumar Senapati, no right to seek benefits under the repealed 1994 Order survives unless aid was already being received or the case was duly recommended before 01.01.2004 – Institutions merely eligible, without formal approval or recommendation prior to repeal, cannot claim relief [Paras 3.2, 4.2, 6.1, 6.3].

Recommendation Prior to Repeal – RTI Data Considered – Relief Permissible on Case-by-Case Basis – Where recommendations by Directorate of Secondary Education were made before repeal, claims held not barred – Held: These cases require verification; such claims may be allowed if eligibility and recommendation are confirmed [Paras 5.4–5.6, 6.1, 6.3].

Doctrine of Equality – Parity Claimed with Other Beneficiaries – Accepted – Citing Apex Court’s dismissal of SLPs and review petitions in identical cases, Court held that similarly situated employees cannot be discriminated against – Reference made to orders in Balaram Mohanta, Arnada Prasad Tripathy, Sucharita Jena, etc. [Paras 5.7–5.14, 6.2, 6.4].

Binding Precedent – Anup Kumar Senapati – Not Absolute Bar – Explained – Court clarified that Anup Kumar Senapati applies where claims arose post-repeal without earlier recommendations – Where recommendations existed or earlier orders were implemented, benefit cannot be denied [Paras 5.2, 5.19, 6.3].

Decision: Appeals by the State against orders granting benefit under GIA Order, 1994 – Dismissed where prior recommendations existed – Appeals by employees against rejection of claims – Allowed subject to verification of eligibility and recommendation prior to repeal of GIA Order – State directed to complete verification within 6 months [Paras 6.3–6.4, 7].

Service Law – Pension Entitlement – Deemed Opt-in Under Office Order – Pension Benefits Granted – The respondent, a retired Deputy Manager (Personnel) in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), did not explicitly opt for either the CPF Scheme or the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme within the prescribed period under the 1992 Office Order – As per para 9 of the 1992 Order, an employee who failed to exercise an option within 30 days was deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme – The High Court, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran (2022) 15 SCC 325, held that the deeming clause in the 1992 Office Order automatically shifted the respondent to the Pension Scheme, irrespective of the fact that he continued contributing to CPF – Held: The respondent is entitled to pension benefits under the Pension Scheme [Paras 6-10, 28].

Retirement Benefits – Effect of Receiving CPF Benefits – No Estoppel Against Pension Claim – The DTC argued that the respondent continued contributing to CPF throughout his service and accepted CPF benefits on retirement, which should preclude him from switching to the Pension Scheme – The Court rejected this argument, holding that mere receipt of CPF benefits does not override the deemed pension opt-in provision in para 9 of the 1992 Order – Held: The respondent’s claim to pension remains valid, but he must return the CPF amount received upon retirement before receiving pension benefits [Paras 11-14, 29-31].

Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Deemed Pension Enrollment Irrevocable – S.L. Verma and Shashi Kiran Followed – The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in S.L. Verma v. Union of India (2006) 12 SCC 53, which held that where a government notification or office order automatically transfers employees to a pension scheme unless they explicitly opt out, such transfer is irrevocable – The Court reiterated the principle from Shashi Kiran that any employee who did not exercise an option to remain in CPF by the cut-off date automatically shifted to the Pension Scheme, irrespective of subsequent contributions to CPF – Held: The DTC’s challenge is without merit as the legal fiction created by para 9 of the 1992 Order is binding [Paras 27-33].

Doctrine of Acquiescence and Estoppel – Not Applicable to Mandatory Legal Fiction – DTC contended that the respondent’s failure to claim pension earlier, coupled with acceptance of CPF funds, amounted to acquiescence and estoppel – The Court rejected this argument, holding that estoppel does not apply against statutory entitlements and legal fictions – Held: Pension entitlement arises from statutory rules and employer-issued office orders, and cannot be waived merely by conduct [Paras 34-35].

Reimbursement of CPF Amount – Condition for Pension Entitlement – While granting relief to the respondent, the Court directed that before receiving pension benefits, the respondent must refund the CPF amount received upon retirement, along with applicable interest – Held: Pension payments shall commence only upon reimbursement of CPF dues as per the conditions stipulated in the 1992 Office Order [Paras 36-37].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – The High Court affirmed the CAT's orders dated 23 December 2015 and 8 February 2016 – DTC directed to extend pension benefits to the respondent in accordance with the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme – The respondent must return the employer's CPF contribution before receiving pension benefits – No order as to costs [Paras 38-40].
 

Partnership Law – Bar Under Section 69(2) – Suit Maintainable as Firm Was Registered Before Filing – The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant firm was not registered at the time of filing, making the suit non-maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. The High Court examined Exhibit-8, a memorandum from the Registrar of Firms, proving the firm's registration before the suit was filed. The Court held that the bar under Section 69(2) applies only if the firm is unregistered on the date of filing, not at the time of transactions. Held: Suit maintainable, as the firm was duly registered before filing [Paras 30-42].

Limitation – Cause of Action Arose on Denial of Payment – Suit Filed Within Time – The respondent argued that the transactions occurred between 2005 and 2007, and the suit filed in 2010 was barred. The Court ruled that the limitation period starts from the date of denial of payment, not from the transaction date. Since the respondent partially admitted the claim and denied balance payments on August 1, 2008, the suit filed on June 5, 2010, was within the three-year limitation period. Held: Suit is not barred by limitation [Paras 26-29].

Admissibility of Additional Evidence – Certified Copies from Registrar of Firms Allowed – The appellant sought to introduce certified copies of firm registration records under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to corroborate Exhibit-8. The Court held that these were public documents admissible under Sections 65 and 74 of the Evidence Act. The additional evidence did not create a new right but merely corroborated an existing document, thus meeting the test for admission. Held: Additional evidence admitted in appeal [Paras 31-40].

Validity of Respondent’s Written Statement – Procedural Defect Rendered It Invalid – The respondent’s written statement was filed by a director (D.W.1) in his personal capacity without stating he was acting on behalf of the company, nor was it stamped with the company seal. Under Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC, pleadings for a company must be signed and verified by an authorized person. The respondent failed to cure this defect or provide proper authorization. Held: Respondent’s written statement is procedurally defective and not valid in law [Paras 61-65].

Proof of Monetary Claim – VAT Adjustments and Purchase Register Confirm Transactions – The appellant relied on Exhibit-4 series (bills and challans) and Exhibit-7 series (respondent’s purchase register) to prove supply of goods. The respondent failed to produce VAT return records, despite adjusting VAT for the disputed transactions. Under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, adverse inference was drawn against the respondent for withholding crucial documents. Held: Transactions sufficiently proved, and appellant entitled to recover dues [Paras 43-52].

Respondent’s Defense of Fraudulent Collusion – No Evidence Against Ex-Director – The respondent alleged collusion between the appellant and its former director, Tarak Nath Mitra. However, D.W.1 (respondent’s own witness) admitted that no complaint, criminal case, or internal action was ever taken against Tarak. The Court found this defense to be an afterthought to avoid liability. Held: No evidence of fraudulent collusion; defense rejected [Paras 53-56].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Trial Court Judgment Set Aside. The High Court held that the appellant’s suit was maintainable as the firm was registered before filing. The suit was within limitation, as the cause of action arose on August 1, 2008. Additional evidence from the Registrar of Firms was admissible. The respondent’s written statement was invalid, affecting its defense. The appellant sufficiently proved the monetary claim.

The respondent is directed to pay ₹24,36,105/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakh Thirty-Six Thousand One Hundred Five Only) with 6% interest per annum from June 5, 2010, until realization. The amount must be paid within 90 days, failing which execution proceedings will be allowed. Stay granted for four weeks to allow the respondent to appeal [Paras 77-82].
 

Taxation Law – Transfer Pricing – International Transaction with Overseas Branches – Valid Reference to TPO – Petition Dismissed – Axis Bank contended that transactions between head office and foreign branches were not international transactions requiring ALP benchmarking – Held: In view of deeming fiction under Section 92F and judicial precedent, foreign branches treated as separate enterprises – Reference valid [Paras 37–44, 51].

CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 – Procedural Compliance – Satisfaction and Approval Found Proper – Petitioner claimed breach of Instruction due to lack of speaking order – Held: Assessing Officer passed detailed speaking order and recorded satisfaction regarding income impact – Principal Commissioner validly approved reference – No procedural breach [Paras 17–24, 30–35].

Natural Justice – Reasonable Opportunity Given – No Prejudice Shown – Petitioner alleged denial of hearing due to late-night notice – Court held: Petitioner submitted objections which were duly considered and addressed by a speaking order – No breach of natural justice [Paras 16, 24, 29–30].

Taxability – Global Income and Credit – Deeming Fiction Upheld – Petitioner argued no tax impact due to global income consolidation – Court rejected, holding: Tax credit mechanisms and differential tax rates may affect revenue; transactions must be benchmarked to avoid base erosion [Paras 40–44, 51].

Premature Challenge – Maintainability of Writ – Rejected – Respondent contended petition was premature since TPO had not yet passed final order – Court held that since all legal issues had been raised and heard, writ was maintainable though ultimately dismissed on merits [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Reference to TPO held valid – Transactions between Indian head office and overseas branches considered international transactions under Income Tax Act – Procedural and legal compliance affirmed – No costs awarded [Paras 51–53].
 

Regular Bail - NDPS Act  - Compliance with Section 50 – Procedural Violation Alleged – Petitioner alleged that search of vehicle and subsequent dissent memo were recorded in violation of Section 50, NDPS Act and Apex Court guidelines – Search was conducted before informing accused of his rights – Held: Prima facie violation noted but court refrains from making conclusive opinion on merits [Paras 3-4].

Drug Recovery – Non-commercial Quantity – Applicability of Bail Principles – Alleged recovery of 100 grams of heroin falls under non-commercial quantity – Court emphasized that pre-trial detention in such cases needs cautious approach due to Article 21 rights and delay in trial progress – Held: No justification to keep petitioner incarcerated indefinitely [Paras 4-5].

Impact of Police Target-Driven Anti-Drug Drive – Apprehension of Misuse – Court took judicial notice of recent DGP's press statement assigning ‘targets’ to police officers for drug arrests – Held: Quantified target-based assessment of police performance may encourage wrongful implication of innocent persons – Directed the State to adopt a balanced approach ensuring public confidence [Paras 4-5].

Criminal Antecedents – Effect on Bail – Court held that pendency of other cases alone cannot be a ground for denial of bail unless evidence in the present case independently supports such denial – Held: Prosecution must prove case-specific facts for opposing bail, not rely merely on antecedents [Para 5].

Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted – Charges already framed, no prosecution witness examined so far, trial likely to take long – Court applied Article 21 jurisprudence and Apex Court ratio in Dataram Singh and Hussainara Khatoon – Held: Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 4-5].
 

Public Interest Litigation – Locus Standi – Bona Fide of Petitioner in Question – The petitioner, an investigative journalist, sought cancellation of a contract awarded to MEIL on the ground that it submitted fraudulent bank guarantees from Euro Exim Bank, which is not recognized by the Reserve Bank of India – The respondents argued that the petitioner had a personal vendetta due to prior civil and criminal disputes with MEIL and had suppressed material facts about these disputes – Held: A petitioner in a PIL must come with clean hands, and suppression of relevant litigation history indicates a lack of bona fide intention – PIL dismissed [Paras 5-7, 25].

Scandalizing the Court – Social Media Posts by Petitioner – Contempt of Court Avoided – The petitioner published tweets making allegations against government authorities and the High Court – The Court noted that the tweets amounted to scandalizing the judiciary, but since the petitioner deleted them within five days on legal advice, no contempt proceedings were initiated – Held: The tweets were inappropriate and undermined the integrity of the judicial process, but the Court exercised judicial magnanimity in not initiating contempt proceedings [Paras 23, 28].

Suppression of Material Facts – Failure to Disclose Prior Litigation – The petitioner failed to disclose multiple pending civil and criminal cases against MEIL, including defamation suits, FIRs, and financial disputes – The Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, require full disclosure of relevant litigation – Held: Non-disclosure of material facts and failure to comply with procedural requirements justified dismissal of the PIL without examining its merits [Paras 24-26].

Judicial Review of Government Contracts – Scope of PIL – The Court reiterated that judicial intervention in government contracts should be limited to cases involving clear arbitrariness, corruption, or mala fide actions – The bank guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank had been authenticated by scheduled banks, and the petitioner failed to establish any illegality – Held: A PIL cannot be used as a tool for personal vendettas or business rivalries [Paras 14-15].

Decision: PIL dismissed. No costs imposed.