Civil Law – Injunction – Permanent and Mandatory – Suit for Protection of Possession – Unregistered Gift Deed – No Title Proved – Plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of a constructed house of 50 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 141, Lal Dora Abadi, Village Bijwasan, New Delhi, on the basis of GPA, Gift Deed, Affidavit and Will dated 20.08.1986 executed by her father-in-law – Defendants, who are brothers-in-law of the Plaintiff, denied Plaintiff's title and possession and asserted that the property was in their possession since birth pursuant to a family settlement – Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that unregistered gift deed cannot create title and Plaintiff failed to prove possession – First Appellate Court concurred – Held in Second Appeal: No substantial question of law arises; both courts have concurrently found no title or possession in the Plaintiff – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 41-42].

Civil Law – Gift Deed – Registration – Unregistered Gift Deed – Cannot Create Title – Collateral Purpose – An unregistered gift deed cannot create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property – While proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permits use of an unregistered document for collateral purposes, the Plaintiff's reliance on an unregistered gift deed to establish title and possession as the foundation of a suit for injunction does not constitute a collateral purpose – Trial Court rightly declined to accept the unregistered gift deed as proof of title [Paras 27, 33].

Civil Law – Will – Proof – Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Will not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it was not attested by an attesting witness – Will cannot be read in evidence unless proved in the manner prescribed – Trial Court rightly excluded the will from consideration [Para 33].

Civil Law – Injunction – Cloud on Title – Declaration – When title is in dispute and there is a cloud over the title of the Plaintiff, a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable unless a declaration of title is also sought – Plaintiff, who had not sought a declaration of title, could not obtain injunction merely on the basis of disputed and unproved title documents – Reliance on Anathula Sudhakar (supra) rightly placed by the Trial Court [Paras 28, 34].

Civil Law – Second Regular Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court that Plaintiff neither had title nor possession of the suit property are not open to challenge in a Second Regular Appeal under Section 100 CPC – Challenge in the present appeal is essentially to findings on fact – No substantial question of law arises for admission of the Second Appeal [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Second Regular Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of fact by Civil Judge and Additional District Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Para 42].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138/141 – Vicarious Liability of Director – Quashing – Inherent Jurisdiction – Cheque bearing No.301731 dated 21.05.2025 for Rs.2.05 Crores issued by Kartarz Alloys Private Limited towards part payment during OTS negotiations for a loan account declared NPA by ICICI Bank Ltd. – Cheque dishonoured – Complaint filed by respondent-company as assignee of the debt – Petitioner, a Director of the company, summoned by trial Court vide order dated 12.01.2026 – Petitioner contended he had no role in day-to-day affairs, cheque bore only the Managing Director's signatures, and the cheque was a conditional security cheque presented fraudulently after rejection of OTS proposal – Held: These are disputed questions of fact incapable of conclusive adjudication in inherent jurisdiction proceedings – Complaint contains foundational averments specifically alleging petitioner's responsibility for the affairs of the company and active participation in the transaction – No patent illegality or perversity in the summoning order – Petition dismissed [Paras 6–8].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC – Jurisdiction to quash is to be exercised sparingly and only where continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law or where no offence is disclosed even if allegations in the complaint are taken at face value – Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or examine the defence raised by the accused – Where basic averments exist in the complaint, proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold merely because the accused raises a probable defence – Defence pleas and disputed questions of fact are matters for adjudication before the trial Court after parties lead evidence [Paras 6–8].

Conditional Security Cheque – OTS Negotiations – Defence of Accused – Whether the cheque was issued as a conditional security cheque and whether it could lawfully be presented after rejection of the OTS proposal are questions of fact requiring evidence – Authenticity and legal consequences of resignation documents relied upon by the petitioner also require trial – This Court cannot at this stage record a definitive finding that the petitioner had no role in the company's affairs [Para 8].

SARFAESI Proceedings – Quashing by DRT – Collusion Alleged – Petitioner contended that SARFAESI proceedings initiated by ICICI Bank were subsequently quashed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 08.08.2025 and that the respondent-company and the Bank acted in collusion to pressurize the petitioner – Held: These contentions require appreciation of evidence and cannot be accepted as grounds for quashing at this stage [Para 4].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Complaint No. NACT-745-2025 and summoning order dated 12.01.2026 not interfered with – Petitioner to face trial before the learned trial Court – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Industrial Disputes – Section 17-B – Statutory Obligation of Employer – Continuing Nature – Minimum Wages Pegged to Current Notifications – Petitioner/Management stayed the reinstatement Award and was directed vide order dated 21.09.2007 to pay "last drawn wages or minimum wages, whichever is higher" during pendency of the Writ Petition – Management continued paying Rs. 11,426/- per month, the last drawn wages, despite minimum wages having been revised to Rs. 18,456/- per month as on April 2025 – Held: The obligation under Section 17-B is statutory, continuing in nature, and the expression "minimum wages" cannot be frozen to the wage rates prevailing on the date of the court order; it necessarily takes into account minimum wages notified from time to time by the appropriate Government – Payment of a static amount despite periodic statutory revisions renders the protection under Section 17-B illusory [Paras 13–24].

Section 17-B – Private Settlement Cannot Override Statutory Mandate – Management contended that wages paid were in accordance with a settlement between Management and Workers' Union – Held: The obligation under Section 17-B operates independent of any private settlement, contractual arrangement or service condition; any arrangement inconsistent with the statutory minimum cannot override the statute or binding court directions – Mere non-assertion of a statutory right over time does not extinguish the right or validate continued breach of the statutory obligation [Paras 19, 25].

Section 17-B – Compliance with Court Order – Not Contingent on Parallel Section 33-C(2) Proceedings – Management submitted that computation of differential wages was subject matter of pending LC No. 44/2024 under Section 33-C(2) – Held: Proceedings under Section 33-C(2) and the present proceedings operate in distinct spheres; Section 33-C(2) proceedings are in the nature of execution for computation and recovery, whereas compliance with Section 17-B orders pertains to interim directions of the High Court; pendency of proceedings before a subordinate forum does not absolve the employer of its continuing obligation under orders passed by this Court [Paras 26–27].

Stay of Reinstatement Award – Vacation – Proportionality – Non-compliance Established – Immediate Vacation Declined – While the breach by the Petitioner/Management was established, immediate vacation of the stay order was held to be a disproportionate consequence, particularly when the breach was capable of remedy by payment of quantified arrears and ensuring future compliance – Held: The power to vacate an interim order must be exercised in a proportionate and balanced manner; continuance of stay conditioned upon payment of differential wage arrears of Rs. 4,82,394/- within six weeks with 9% interest on default, and future payment of minimum wages as notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi, whichever is higher, by the 7th of each succeeding month [Paras 30–37].

Decision: Application disposed of – Prayer for vacation of stay order dated 25.07.2005 declined for the present – Petitioner/Management directed to pay arrears of differential wages under Section 17-B quantified at Rs. 4,82,394/- within six weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum to apply – Petitioner/Management directed to continue paying last drawn wages or minimum wages as notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi from time to time, whichever is higher, on or before the 7th of each succeeding month – Observations confined to the present Application and not to be construed as expression on the merits of the pending Writ Petition.

Official Secrets Act – Espionage – Bail – Non-Furnishing of Written Grounds of Arrest – Section 47 BNSS / Article 22(1) – Petitioner arrested for alleged transmission of sensitive information relating to military establishments to Pakistani handlers through WhatsApp and electronic modes — FIR registered under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Sections 152 and 238(b) BNS 2023 – Case diary revealed that while the petitioner was orally informed of the basis of arrest at the time of arrest, grounds of arrest were never furnished to him in writing – Neither the Public Prosecutor nor the Magistrate verified compliance with the mandatory requirement at the stage of remand proceedings on 31.01.2026 – Held: Non-supply of written grounds of arrest contrary to the dictum in Mihir Rajesh Shah renders the arrest legally unsustainable – Bail granted – Liberty reserved to the State to re-arrest if a case is made out [Paras 15–23].

Grounds of Arrest – Written Communication – Constitutional Mandate – Settled Law – Right of an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing in a language understood by him flows from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS – Communication of grounds of arrest is a substantive safeguard, not a mere procedural formality, intended to enable the arrested person to effectively avail legal assistance, oppose remand and seek bail – The mandatory requirement applies to all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC/BNS – Written grounds must ordinarily be furnished on arrest; where this is impractical due to flagrante delicto situations, oral communication suffices at the time of arrest but written copy must follow in any case at least two hours before production before the Magistrate for remand [Paras 9–14].

Conflict between Mihir Rajesh Shah and Sri Darshan – Reconciliation – State relied on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan to contend that substantial compliance suffices and absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render arrest illegal absent demonstrable prejudice – Held: Sri Darshan dealt with a bail cancellation case where charge-sheet had already been filed and grounds of detention were served immediately; it was decided on materially different facts – Ahmed Mansoor v. State distinguished Sri Darshan on facts and reiterated importance of strict adherence to constitutional safeguards – The authoritative three-Judge Bench judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah is binding and does not permit dilution of the mandatory requirement of written grounds [Paras 19–21].

Duty of Magistrate – Remand – Compliance Verification – Constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest cast a duty not only upon the investigating officer but also upon the prosecuting agency and the Magistrate supervising remand proceedings to verify strict compliance with Articles 21 and 22 and Section 47 BNSS – Mere oral disclosure of allegations without written grounds does not constitute due compliance – Illegality in arrest persists through a Magistrate who grants custody without ensuring procedural compliance [Para 18].

Parting Remarks – Directions – Held: Dictum in Mihir Rajesh Shah must be mandatorily complied with by all investigating agencies and Courts – Magistrates considering remand applications must specifically ascertain whether written grounds of arrest have been duly furnished and communicated – Copy of order forwarded to Director General of Police, Rajasthan and Director of Prosecution, Rajasthan for initiating appropriate action against the concerned Investigating Officer and Public Prosecutor – Copy placed before the Chief Justice for action regarding the conduct of the concerned Magistrate (ACJM No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-I) – Registrar (Judicial) directed to forward copy to all subordinate courts for sensitization [Paras 28–31].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner Jhabra Ram enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge – Petitioner to mark presence on 25th of every month at Special Police Station, District C.I.D. Security till conclusion of trial – To submit address and mobile number within 7 days of release – To deposit passport, if any – Not to leave India without prior permission of the Court – Liberty to State to arrest if a case is made out.

Indian Forest Act – Sections 41 and 42 – Illicit Timber Transport – Acquittal – Appeal – Accused intercepted while driving a truck bearing registration No. HP-54-2257 allegedly transporting Khair logs without permit on 13.02.2005 – Police recovered 1.74 cubic meters of Khair wood – Accused acquitted by Trial Court on grounds of absence of independent witnesses and absence of signatures of accused on seizure memos – State preferred appeal – Held: Trial Court took a reasonable view; prosecution witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 stated that Khair wood was stacked at a bridge by the contractor Kashmir Singh and the police seized it therefrom, contradicting the prosecution's case that wood was found in the truck – Neither witness was re-examined to clarify; benefit of such discrepancy goes to the defence – This Court will not interfere with a reasonable view of the Trial Court even if another view is possible – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15–23].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Parameters for Interference – Reinforced Presumption of Innocence – Settled position that High Court can interfere with acquittal only if the judgment is patently perverse, based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with guilt is possible – Where two views are reasonably possible and the Trial Court has taken the view favouring the accused, such acquittal should not be disturbed – Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court before reversing it [Paras 12–14].

Prosecution Witness – Cross-Examination – Benefit to Defence – Where a prosecution witness in cross-examination supports the defence version and is not re-examined to clarify such statement, the benefit of the discrepancy goes to the defence – The prosecution is bound by the statements of its own witnesses and cannot selectively rely on portions favourable to it – Defence can take advantage of any statement made in cross-examination by a prosecution witness even without the witness being declared hostile [Paras 15–16].

Two Views – View Favouring Accused to be Preferred – Golden thread of criminal jurisprudence that when two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the view favouring the accused must be adopted – This applies equally in appeals against acquittal – Appellate Court would not ordinarily disturb findings of acquittal unless the conclusion is wholly unreasonable, perverse, or based on manifest illegality [Para 17].

Independent Witnesses – Adverse Inference – Absence of independent witnesses cannot be mechanically excused – Police had received prior information at 7:30 p.m. and recovery was effected at 12:30 a.m. — a gap of five hours — during which the police could have joined independent persons on the way to the spot – Having definite prior information as opposed to routine patrolling, the absence of independent witnesses assumes significance and justifies adverse inference against the prosecution [Paras 21–22].

Seizure Memo – Absence of Accused's Signatures – ASI Amreek Singh (PW-10) admitted that signatures of the accused were not obtained on seizure memos Ext.PW-10/A and Ext.PW-10/B, and that usually signatures of the person producing the articles are obtained – No explanation furnished for non-compliance – Absence of signatures on seizure memos corroborates the defence version that the wood was not recovered from the truck [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondents under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act confirmed – Respondents directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each effective for six months, operative in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed before the Supreme Court.

Criminal Law – Bail – Communal Harmony – Desecration of River Ganges – Uploading of Video on Social Media – Applicants alleged to have desecrated the Ganges and uploaded a video on Instagram as part of a conspiracy to disturb communal harmony – Charged under Sections 298, 299, 196(1)(b), 279, 223(b) and 308(5) BNS and Section 67 IT Act – Applicants in custody since 17.03.2026 – Held: Prima facie case for bail made out; bail applications allowed [Paras 3-11].

Bail – Parity – Co-accused Released – Applicants similarly situated to co-accused who were granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 15.05.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 12532, 12529 and 14740 of 2026 – Principle of parity applied [Para 4, 8].

Bail – Factors – Period of Detention – Absence of Criminal Antecedents – Unconditional Apology – Court took into account period of custody already undergone, lack of criminal antecedents, and unconditional apology tendered in supplementary affidavits expressing heartfelt remorse and lifelong respect for Maa Ganga and the Hindu community – Apology found genuine and heartfelt – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Bail applications allowed – Applicants Danish Saifi, Noor Islam and Amir Kaifi directed to be released on personal bond and two reliable sureties each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned – Standard conditions imposed including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, regular appearance before trial Court and non-indulgence in criminal activity – Observations not to be construed as opinion on merits.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Dishonour – Conviction – Two cheques dated 24.02.2014 for Rs.19,75,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- issued by the petitioner to the complainant M/s. Adisiva Enterprises dishonoured – Trial Court (CJM, Kollam) convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and directed payment of Rs.29,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC with a default clause of four months' further simple imprisonment – Appellate Court (Addl. Sessions Court-VI, Kollam) confirmed – Contentions of absence of liability and issuance of signed blank cheques rightly repelled by both Courts after detailed evaluation of evidence – Held: Concurrent findings on merits do not warrant further adjudication in revision [Paras 2–5].

Power of Attorney Holder – Complaint – Personal Knowledge – Section 465 CrPC – Petitioner contended the complaint was legally unsustainable as the power of attorney holder (wife of the proprietor of the complainant firm) did not aver direct personal knowledge of the transactions in the complaint – Held: The ratio in M/s. Naresh Potteries v. M/s. Aarti Industries and Narayanan A.C. v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasize the need to plead direct personal knowledge of the power of attorney holder, was laid down at the initial stage of those cases, i.e. at the point of issuance of process and was challenged promptly – In the present case, no such prompt challenge was raised; the complainant himself appeared as PW1 and adduced evidence at trial; the petitioner cross-examined the complainant on all aspects – Defect in complaint curable under Section 465 CrPC where no failure of justice has been occasioned [Paras 5–11].

Section 465 CrPC – Failure of Justice – Error or Irregularity in Complaint – No finding, sentence or order of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed on account of error, omission or irregularity unless it has occasioned a failure of justice – In determining failure of justice, court shall have regard to whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage – Petitioner neither challenged cognizance nor raised the objection before commencement of trial – Original complainant himself adduced evidence and was cross-examined – No failure of justice occasioned – Concurrent convictions not liable to be overturned on this ground [Paras 8–12].

Sentence – Modification – Six Months' Imprisonment Reduced to Till Rising of Court – Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, sentence of simple imprisonment for six months reduced to imprisonment till the rising of Court – Compensation of Rs.29,50,000/- and default clause retained [Para 12].

Decision: Revision petition partly allowed – Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upheld – Sentence of six months' simple imprisonment modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court – Compensation of Rs.29,50,000/- under Section 357(3) CrPC and default clause for non-payment retained – Records transmitted to Trial Court for enforcement of revised sentence.

Municipal Law – Encroachment on Highway – West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 – Removal – Municipality – Haldia Municipality constructed a two-storeyed public toilet on PWD land (Plot No. 751/1452) without permission – Proceedings under Section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 initiated – Sub-Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate both directed removal of encroachment – Division Bench in prior intra-court appeal had recorded that it was admitted that the Municipality made construction over PWD land without its permission – Held: No infirmity in orders of removal; writ petition dismissed – Even if the construction was for public welfare, construction on PWD land without permission constitutes encroachment under the 1964 Act [Paras 1-45].

Municipal Law – "Person" under West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 – Includes Municipality – The word "person" in Section 10 of the 1964 Act is not defined therein and must be given its legal dictionary meaning – In law, "person" includes any entity recognised as having rights and duties of a human being – Haldia Municipality, being a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, capable of suing and being sued, falls squarely within the expression "person" under Section 10 of the 1964 Act – Occupation of PWD land by a Municipality without lawful authority constitutes "encroachment" by an "unauthorized person" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the 1964 Act [Paras 32-37].

Municipal Law – Government Buildings Act, 1899 – Section 3 – Exemption for State Government Construction – Section 3 of the Government Buildings Act, 1899 grants exemption to the State Government from complying with municipal building laws when constructing on its own land or land occupied by it – The Act does not empower a Municipality to make construction upon PWD land without obtaining permission from the PWD – Even notice under Section 3 of the 1899 Act is mandatory before commencement of construction – 1899 Act cannot be invoked by the Municipality to legitimise construction on PWD land without permission [Paras 20-24].

Municipal Law – Permission – Promissory Estoppel – Memo dated 18.11.1988 – Memo of 1988 granted permission to construct on land in Dag Nos. 144, 145, 146, 149 and 779 under Mouza Durga Chowk – No permission was granted in respect of Dag No. 1452 or Plot No. 751/1452 within Mouza Sutahata – Petitioner failed to demonstrate that permission to construct on the land in question was accorded – Doctrine of promissory estoppel inapplicable in absence of a definite promise by the Government in respect of the specific plot – Memo cannot assist the petitioner [Paras 18, 27-28].

Municipal Law – Section 26 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 – Not a Saving Provision for Permanent Construction – Section 26 enables local authorities to make excavation for certain specific purposes and saves rights under other laws for specific purposes – Construction of a permanent two-storeyed structure by way of encroachment upon PWD land is neither permitted under the 1964 Act nor saved under Section 26 thereof [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the District Magistrate directing removal of encroachment upheld – No order as to costs [Para 45].

Criminal Law – Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 405 and 406 IPC – Provident Fund Deductions – "Employer" and "Occupier" – Ultimate Control – Petitioners were former General Managers and Branch Manager of Ayurdhara Pharmaceuticals, South Ancheri, a unit of the Kerala State Federation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Co-operative Society – Charged with criminal breach of trust for failure to deposit employees' provident fund contributions deducted from salaries during May 2011 to February 2016 – Held: Petitioners do not satisfy the definition of "Employer" or "Occupier" under Section 2(e) and 2(k) of the EPF Act or "Occupier" under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, as ultimate control over the affairs of Ayurdhara Pharmaceuticals vested in the Federation, not in the petitioners who were lower-level officers of the Co-operative Department – FIR and all proceedings quashed [Paras 4-18].

Criminal Law – Employer – Occupier – Definition – Sections 2(e) and 2(k) EPF Act, Section 2(n) Factories Act – "Employer" in relation to an establishment which is not a factory means the person or authority having ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, or the manager/managing director/managing agent when affairs are entrusted to them – "Occupier" of a factory is the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory – General Managers and Branch Managers assigned to a unit of a Federation do not have ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment when ultimate control is vested in the Federation and its Managing Director under the bye law – Such officers are not "Employers" or "Occupiers" within the meaning of the EPF Act or Factories Act [Paras 7-11].

Criminal Law – Cooperative Society – Bye Law – Managing Director – Ultimate Control – As per the Bye Law of the Federation, management vests in the Board of Directors with the Managing Director as the Chief Executive responsible for general administration of the Federation and all units functioning under it – Managing Director has authority to sign cheques, receive moneys, supervise staff, sue and be sued on behalf of the Federation – Form No. 5A submitted under the EPF Scheme showed the name of the Managing Director as the owner and occupier of Ayurdhara Pharmaceuticals, South Ancheri – The persons liable to be prosecuted are the Managing Directors of the Federation during the relevant periods, who were however excluded from the final report without justification [Paras 12-16].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Where on the face of prosecution records and relevant bye law it is apparent that ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment did not vest in the petitioners, the question of ultimate control is not purely factual and requiring evidence – Court can quash proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process of law – Argument that question of ultimate control must await trial is not acceptable where the legal position is apparent from the prosecution records themselves [Para 17].

Decision: All three petitions allowed – FIR registered in Crime No. 1598/2016 of Ollur Police Station and all proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur in CC No. 1230/2017 quashed [Para 18].