NDPS Act – Supurdnama of Seized Vehicle – Owner-cum-Driver Accused – Joint Possession of Contraband – Refusal of Interim Custody Justified – Applicant sought interim release of Pick-up vehicle seized in Crime No.397/2025 registered under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act – Vehicle registered in applicant’s name and contraband (18 kg 600 gms ganja) recovered from joint possession of applicant and co-accused – Applicant arrayed as accused and also driver of vehicle – Held: Case falls within first/second category of seizure where owner/driver is accused – Vehicle cannot be released till reverse burden is discharged – Order rejecting Supurdnama not perverse [Paras 9–12, 16–19].

Supreme Court Guidelines – Bishwajit Dey / Denash Case – No Straight-Jacket Formula – Facts Distinguishable – Supreme Court held that release of vehicle depends on factual matrix and is not automatic – In Denash v. State of Tamil Nadu, vehicle released as owner was not accused and contraband carried without owner’s knowledge along with lawful cargo – In present case, owner himself was driving vehicle and no other lawful cargo was being carried – Held: Benefit of Denash judgment not applicable [Paras 13–17].

Section 451 CrPC – Discretion of Trial Court – Limited Scope of Revisional Interference – Interim custody of seized property is discretionary – Revisional Court will interfere only if order is arbitrary or perverse – Trial court considered nature of offence, role of accused and seizure circumstances – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference [Paras 8, 19].

NDPS Offences – Reverse Burden of Proof – Impact on Release of Conveyance – Where owner is directly involved in transportation of contraband, presumption under NDPS Act operates – Vehicle forms part of offence and may be liable for confiscation – Held: Release at interim stage would defeat statutory scheme [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 31.12.2025 rejecting Supurdnama application affirmed – No interference warranted.

Compassionate Appointment – Nature and Scope – Exception to general rule of public employment – Not a vested right – Intended to provide immediate succour to family in financial distress due to death in harness – Cannot be claimed as a matter of course or inheritance – Must satisfy scheme conditions and demonstrate indigence [Paras 7, 8].

Compassionate Appointment – Delay and Laches – Application made in 2008 but writ petition filed in 2017 – Delay of about nine years – Indicates absence of immediate financial crisis – Presumption that family not in penury – Relief rightly declined [Para 8].

Change in Policy – Pending Applications – State policy dated 05.07.2011 substituted compassionate appointment with lump-sum compensation – All pending applications governed by new policy – Petitioner cannot insist upon appointment contrary to prevailing policy – Employer cannot be compelled to act dehors policy [Paras 8, 8.1].

Lump-Sum Compensation – Refusal by Family – Cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- sanctioned and offered in 2018 – Widow refused to accept and amount even returned after deposit – Conduct indicates insistence only on appointment – No entitlement to interest where delay attributable to claimant’s refusal [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Compassionate Appointment – Indigence – Essential precondition – Court must evaluate financial distress – Mere death in harness insufficient – Refusal of compensation by family demonstrates absence of financial destitution [Paras 8, 11, 12].

Relief under Article 226 – Discretionary Jurisdiction – Court not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction where petitioner insists on appointment contrary to policy and refuses compensation – However, direction issued to resend cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- to widow of deceased employee by specified date [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Prayer for compassionate appointment rejected – No interest on compensation – Respondents directed to send cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- to widow (Dipikaben Trivedi) on or before 15th March, 2026 – Rule discharged – No order as to costs [Paras 13–15].

Gangster Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Solitary Base Case – Validity of Gang Chart – Application under Section 528 BNSS filed seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act, including charge-sheet and cognizance order – Applicant contended that initiation of Gangster Act proceedings on the basis of a solitary case was impermissible and contrary to the Gangster Rules, 2021 – Held: In view of Rule 22 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 and law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of a single case – No illegality found on this ground [Paras 4, 10, 28–29].

Gang Chart – Compliance with Rule 5(3) – Joint Meeting and Satisfaction of Authorities – Challenge raised on the ground that gang chart was approved without due discussion and joint meeting – Court found that gang chart was prepared and approved on 21.09.2024 after completion of investigation of the base case and after a joint meeting – Satisfaction of forwarding and approving authorities recorded in their own handwriting – Held: Requirements of Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 16 duly complied with – Case distinguishable from Sanni Mishra, Mohd. Arif @ Guddu and Vinod Bihari Lal [Paras 7–9, 13, 18].

Rule 5(3)(c) – Completion of Investigation of Base Case – Applicant contended that gang chart was approved prior to completion of investigation of the base case – Court noted that charge-sheet in the base case was prepared on 20.09.2024 and gang chart was prepared on 21.09.2024 – Held: Statutory requirement that investigation must be completed prior to approval of gang chart was fully satisfied – No violation of Rule 5(3)(c) [Paras 3, 8, 21].

Rule 8(2) – Allegation of False or Unconfirmed Information – Submission that unverified and false information was entered in the gang chart – Applicant failed to point out any specific false entry – Court held that status of base case and relevant particulars were correctly mentioned – No violation of Rule 8(2) established [Paras 9, 16, 26].

Rule 10 – Requirement of Certified Copy of Charge-Sheet – Argument that certified copy of charge-sheet was not annexed with the gang chart – Court relying on Ambuj Parag Dubey and Narendra Kumar held that Rule 10 does not require a certified copy issued by the court – Copy of charge-sheet prepared and certified by the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation is sufficient – Held: No violation of Rule 10(1) [Paras 9, 21–25].

Rule 16 & Rule 17 – Independent Application of Mind – Applicant alleged mechanical approval of gang chart – Court found that authorities recorded satisfaction independently and not by signing a pre-printed proforma – Held: Mandatory requirement of independent application of mind under Rules 16 and 17 complied with [Paras 13, 18, 29].

Scope of Interference under Section 528 BNSS – Court reiterated that at the stage of quashing, it cannot undertake a roving enquiry into sufficiency of evidence – Once statutory procedure under the Gangster Act and Rules is followed, proceedings cannot be quashed merely on technical objections – Application held devoid of merit [Paras 11, 29–30].

Decision: Application dismissed – Proceedings under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act upheld – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Court reiterated that while considering an application for rejection of plaint, it must confine itself strictly to the averments in the plaint and documents relied upon therein – Test is whether on a plain and meaningful reading, the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendant seeking rejection – Plaint can be rejected partially against some defendants while surviving against others [Paras 1, 14, 18(A), 18(G)].

Company Law – Directors – Personal Liability – Separate Corporate Personality – Mere designation as director or nominee director does not ipso facto render a director personally liable for acts or contractual obligations of the company – In absence of pleadings showing personal role, benefit, statutory liability, or grounds for lifting the corporate veil, no cause of action lies against directors [Paras 11, 12, 18(D), 18(E)].

Pleadings – Omnibus Allegations – Use of Generic Expression “Defendants” – Plaint making sweeping and omnibus allegations without attributing specific acts, omissions, or roles to individual defendants held insufficient – Use of generic expression “the Defendants” without individualized pleadings fails to disclose cause of action against directors [Paras 10, 18(B)].

Fraud and Collusion – Pleading Requirements – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Allegations of fraud, collusion, or conspiracy must be pleaded with material particulars – Bald and vague allegations without specific particulars do not meet statutory pleading standards and cannot sustain impleadment of directors [Paras 10, 18(E)].

Order VII Rule 11 – Scope of Enquiry – Affidavit in Reply Irrelevant – Plaintiff cannot rely on averments in affidavit-in-reply to cure defects in plaint – Cause of action must be disclosed in the plaint itself – Material outside the plaint cannot be considered while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 13, 17, 18(F)].

Nominee Directors – Impleadment Without Averments – Nominee directors impleaded solely on basis of designation without any pleaded involvement or wrongdoing – Held that plaint was entirely bereft of any allegation against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Plaint rejected as against them [Paras 3–9, 16, 18(B), 18(C)].

Decision: All Notices of Motion allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 – Suit to proceed only against remaining defendants – Consequential Notice of Motion disposed of as infructuous [Paras 19–20].

Railway Land – Temporary License – Resumption Clause – Petitioners occupying Railway land under temporary land license agreements for commercial purposes challenged termination notices directing them to vacate within 30 days for implementation of Amrit Bharat Station Scheme – License agreements expressly reserved Government’s right to resume possession at any time under Clause 20 – Held: Petitioners accepted temporary occupation subject to overriding right of resumption – Termination in terms of contractual stipulation valid – No indefeasible right to continue in possession [Paras 17–21, 25].

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 – Applicability – Petitioners contended that eviction without invoking provisions of 1971 Act violated principles of natural justice – Respondents contended petitioners were licensees, not unauthorized occupants – Held: Where possession flows from contractual license containing express resumption clause, authority competent to terminate and resume possession in terms of agreement – Invocation of Public Premises Act not mandatory in such circumstances – Petitioners cannot insist on being declared unauthorized occupants before eviction [Paras 14, 22].

License vs. Right to Property – Temporary Commercial Occupation – License agreements granted only physical occupation for commercial use and not for dwelling purposes – Government retained full title and control – Licensees liable to vacate at will of Government – Long duration of occupation (50–60 years) does not convert permissive possession into legal right against true owner [Paras 19–22, 24–25].

Rehabilitation – Claim for Alternative Accommodation – Petitioners sought direction for framing rehabilitation scheme in case of dispossession – Held: Petitioners not being illegally dispossessed but required to vacate strictly in terms of license conditions – Land required for public purpose under Amrit Bharat Station Scheme – No enforceable right to rehabilitation arises in contractual license cases [Paras 23–24].

Distinguishing Supreme Court Proceedings – Reliance placed on pending matters before Supreme Court regarding eviction from Railway land – Held: Facts distinguishable – Present case involves limited number of licensees occupying land under specific agreements acknowledging Railway’s title and resumption rights – Not a case of mass uprooting without record of title – No protection available on that basis [Para 23].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Though writ petition dismissed, Court granted 30 days’ time to petitioners to vacate and remove structures considering ultimate prayer made on their behalf [Para 26].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No interference with termination notices dated 18.01.2024 – Petitioners directed to vacate land – Respondent authorities to grant 30 days’ time to petitioners to remove materials/structures – Writ petition disposed of.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Section 187(2) BNSS – NDPS Offence – Accused arrested on 07.05.2025 – Statutory period of 180 days for filing challan – Prosecution sought extension before expiry – Extension granted without presence of accused – Held, extension order passed in absence of accused vitiated – Accused entitled to default bail [Paras 5, 7-9].

Extension of Time – Right to be Heard – Presence of Accused – When Court considers application for extension of time to file challan, accused must be produced physically or virtually – Failure to ensure presence and opportunity to oppose extension amounts to gross illegality – Not a mere procedural irregularity – Violative of Article 21 [Paras 6-8].

Indefeasible Right to Default Bail – Scope – Right accrues on expiry of statutory period if no valid extension granted – Grant of extension without complying with procedural safeguards deprives accused of constitutional protection – Order granting extension without recording presence/submissions of accused unsustainable [Paras 5-8].

Article 21 – Fair Procedure – Deprivation of personal liberty must follow fair and reasonable procedure – Extension of time directly affects right to default bail – Non-production of accused while granting extension infringes fundamental right under Article 21 [Paras 6-7].

NDPS Act – Seriousness of Offence – Gravity of offence cannot override statutory and constitutional safeguards relating to default bail – Compliance with mandatory procedure essential [Paras 4, 7].

Decision: Impugned order dated 04.11.2025 quashed qua petitioners – Petitioners directed to be released on default bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of trial Court – Clarified that observations shall not affect merits of the case – Petition disposed of.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Prosecution Sanction – Refusal by Competent Authority – Subsequent Grant by Another Authority – Validity – Petitioner, Assistant Grade-II in Municipal Council, faced prosecution under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) PC Act – President-in-Council, being competent authority under Section 19(1) PC Act, refused sanction – State Department suo motu set aside refusal and Commissioner granted sanction relying on amended Rule 51 – Held: Once competent authority refuses sanction, same cannot be reviewed or overridden in absence of express statutory power – Subsequent sanction held without jurisdiction [Paras 11–15].

Municipal Law – Section 323, M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 – Scope and Limitations – Power under Section 323 confined to suspension or prohibition of unlawful municipal resolutions – Does not confer power of review or reversal of an order refusing prosecution sanction under a Central enactment – State cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders passed under Section 19 PC Act – Impugned order passed in excess of statutory authority [Paras 12–14].

Special Act vs. State Legislation – Prevailing Effect of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – PC Act being a special Central legislation prevails over State Municipal law – Orders under Section 19(3) PC Act cannot be nullified by invoking Section 323 of the Act of 1961 – Sanction regime under PC Act held exclusive and exhaustive [Paras 12–14].

Service Rules – Amendment with Prospective Operation – No Retrospective Sanction Power – Amendment to Rule 51 dated 15.12.2022 enlarging sanctioning authority – Cannot be applied retrospectively to overturn refusal already made by competent authority – Commissioner lacked competence to grant sanction de hors earlier refusal [Paras 14–15].

Administrative Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Non-delegable Function – Grant or refusal of sanction is an administrative act requiring independent application of mind – Sanction cannot be granted on directions of another authority nor on the basis of a report – Concurrent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to nullify an earlier valid decision [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed – Orders dated 30.05.2023, 17.07.2023 and 24.04.2024 set aside – Prosecution sanction quashed – All consequential proceedings annulled – No order as to costs.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Enhancement – Change in Circumstances – Divorced wife suffering from schizophrenia sought enhancement of maintenance – Husband, a Chartered Accountant employed in Dubai, earning substantial income – Wife unemployed, dependent on parents, and medically unfit to sustain herself – Held: Education does not equate to employability, particularly where mental illness is established – Husband who secured divorce on ground of wife’s mental illness cannot deny maintenance by asserting her earning capacity – Change in financial capacity of husband and rise in cost of living constitute valid grounds for enhancement [Paras 21–26, 34–36].

Maintenance – Quantum – Overseas Employment – Assessment of Income – Husband contended high cost of living in UAE and multiple liabilities – Court held voluntary liabilities such as personal loans and EMIs cannot override statutory obligation to maintain dependent spouse – Only mandatory deductions relevant – Cost of living abroad relevant but cannot be used to defeat wife’s right to dignified sustenance – Maintenance enhanced from ₹15,000/- to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 [Paras 29–36].

Maintenance – Date of Effect – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Wife claimed enhancement should relate back to earlier Section 127 petition filed in 2007 which was dismissed on technical grounds – Held: Once earlier petition dismissed, even with liberty to file afresh, subsequent petition cannot relate back – Enhancement rightly granted from date of fresh application i.e. 13.01.2011 – No illegality in Family Court’s approach [Paras 37–45].

Execution Proceedings – Interpretation of Maintenance Order – Dispute whether maintenance was enhanced to ₹9,000/- or by ₹9,000/- per month for period prior to 12.07.2017 – Plain reading of operative portion showed substitution of amount, not addition – Family Court correctly held that ₹9,000/- per month was payable from 13.01.2011 till 12.07.2017 and ₹15,000/- thereafter – Execution rightly closed as satisfied with excess payment [Paras 46–51].

Conduct of Litigant – Frivolous Re-interpretation of Orders – Petitioner accepted interpretation of maintenance order for years and later took inconsistent stand during execution – Attempt to reopen settled issues deprecated – Revision challenging execution order held frivolous [Paras 52–54].

Decision: CRL.REV.P. No. 950/2017 partly allowed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 – No interference with date of enhancement fixed by Family Court – CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021 dismissed – Execution order upheld – Costs of ₹10,000/- imposed, payable to Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

Mandatory Injunction – Licensor–Licensee Relationship – Maintainability – Suit for mandatory injunction filed by husband and subsequent purchaser against wife occupying flat – Wife claimed to be trespasser post revocation of licence – Held: Where defendant occupies premises as a licensee and licence is terminated, suit for mandatory injunction for recovery of possession is maintainable – Not barred under Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act – Reliance placed on Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh and Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma [Paras 14–18].

Ownership of Property – Exclusive Title – Stridhan Plea – Wife claimed joint ownership alleging contribution of stridhan and personal assets – Lease deed and allotment documents stood solely in husband’s name – No documentary proof of contribution produced – Affidavit filed by wife not subjected to cross-examination – Held: Burden of proving joint ownership lay on wife and remained undischarged – Trial court rightly held husband to be sole owner [Paras 19–26].

Evidence – Affidavit Without Cross-Examination – Evidentiary Value – Wife failed to appear for cross-examination despite repeated opportunities – Held: Affidavit in evidence without cross-examination cannot be relied upon – Trial court justified in discarding such evidence [Paras 21–24].

Transfer of Property – Sale During Pendency of Suit – Section 52 TPA – Lis Pendens – Sale deed executed in favour of subsequent purchaser during pendency of litigation – Necessary permissions obtained from NOIDA and builder – Indemnity bond executed – Mere pendency of matrimonial or domestic violence proceedings does not invalidate transfer – Purchaser acted in good faith after due diligence – Sale deed held valid [Paras 27–32].

Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Scope – Wife claimed right of residence under PWDV Act – Evidence showed existence of more than one household – Held: Act contemplates right in one shared household only – Disputed flat could not be treated as shared household once licence stood terminated and alternate residence existed [Paras 31–32].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Quantum – Trial court awarded damages @ ₹60,000 per month based on admitted prior rental value – Claim of low maintenance by wife irrelevant for determining mesne profits payable to lawful owner – Award held reasonable and supported by evidence [Paras 33–34].

Appellate Interference – Findings of Fact – Ownership and Possession – High Court reiterated that findings of fact by trial court should not be interfered with unless perverse – No perversity or illegality shown – Decree affirmed [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Both First Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 affirmed – Mandatory injunction, declaration of ownership in favour of purchaser, and award of mesne profits upheld.