Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under SC/ST (POA) Act claiming deceased converted to Christianity - Petitioner produced church certificate claiming deceased followed Christian rites - Prosecution produced statement of church secretary denying issuance of certificate and membership - Court held that since investigation is currently in progress and charge sheet is not yet filed, it is premature to determine the caste status of the deceased or the veracity of conflicting evidentiary materials - Held - Quashing at this stage is not warranted - Issue of applicability of SC/ST (POA) Act kept open for investigation and trial stage - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 - Conversion - Supreme Court in Chinthada Anand vs State of Andhra Pradesh established that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste ceases to be a member upon conversion to Christianity unless reconversion and community acceptance are established - Determination of such factual status is dependent upon evidence collected during investigation - Held - Where investigation is pending and evidence is contradictory, High Court cannot invoke inherent powers to quash statutory provisions prematurely - [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Criminal petition disposed of with directions to keep the issue regarding the applicability of the SC/ST (POA) Act open to be decided upon completion of investigation – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

IBC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 31 - Extinguishment of claims - Petitioner underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and resolution plan was approved on 11 August 2023 - GST authorities issued demand notices in 2025 and 2026 for tax liabilities pertaining to Financial Year 2021-22 - No claim was lodged by authorities during insolvency process - Court held that statutory dues not forming part of approved resolution plan stand extinguished and authorities lack jurisdiction to initiate or continue any proceedings - Held - Impugned notices and orders quashed - [Paras 1-32].

Writ Law - Jurisdiction - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 73 - Doctrine of fresh slate - Authorities contended that adjudication is distinct from recovery and permissible under CGST Act - Court held that once resolution plan is approved the successful applicant takes over business on a fresh slate - Any attempt to initiate adjudication proceedings for pre-approval claims acts as a roadblock to the implementation of the plan and is barred by Section 31 of the IBC - Held - Respondents lacked authority to initiate proceedings - [Paras 10-21].

Writ Law - Maintainability - Alternative remedy - Availability of appellate remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act - Court held that when an authority acts wholly without jurisdiction or in defiance of binding law and when facts are admitted the presence of an appellate remedy is not an absolute bar to exercising writ jurisdiction - Relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks - Held - Writ petition maintainable - [Para 24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 26 September 2025, Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2025, and notice dated 13 January 2026 quashed and set aside.

Civil Law - Co-ownership - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 44 - Sale of specific portion of joint holding - Trial Court declared sale deed of specific Khasra numbers by one co-sharer as null and void citing lack of partition - First Appellate Court upheld the findings - High Court affirmed that a co-sharer can alienate his undivided share but cannot alienate a specific portion of the joint land to the exclusion of other co-sharers - Held - Sale of specific portion of joint land amounts only to the sale of the share of the co-sharer in the joint holding - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-24].

Civil Law - Limitation - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Limitation Act 1963 - Suit for declaration - Limitation period - Appellant contended suit filed 22 years after sale was barred by limitation - Held - As the sale of a specific portion of joint land is in substance a sale of a share and the plaintiff co-sharer is entitled to claim partition irrespective of the sale, the sale deed is not required to be set aside for the plaintiff to assert his rights - the suit is not barred by limitation - [Paras 11-24].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 20 Rule 5 - Clubbing of issues - Trial Court decided issues 1, 2 and 9 together to avoid repetition - Held - There is no bar to clubbing issues that overlap or arise from the same factual matrix to prevent unnecessary protraction of litigation and such action does not vitiate the judgment - [Paras 25-27].

Civil Law - Revenue Law - Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act 1954 - Sections 35 and 135 - Family arrangement versus partition - Mere arrangement for cultivation of land by co-sharers without reporting to revenue authorities does not amount to partition by metes and bounds - Held - In the absence of a formal partition, the land remains joint and revenue records carry a presumption of correctness - [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are affirmed.

Civil Law - Partition Suit - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 1 and Order XXIII Rule 1-A - Defendant seeking transposition as plaintiff - Trial Court permitted original plaintiffs to withdraw suit unconditionally despite defendants claiming a 2/3rd share in the written statement - Trial Court rejected transposition on grounds that no formal counter-claim was filed - High Court held that in a partition suit a defendant seeking a share is in the position of a plaintiff and the right to withdraw is not absolute when it defeats the claim of a co-sharer - Held - Trial Court acted with material irregularity - transposition allowed - [Paras 12-25].

Civil Law - Transposition of Parties - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 1-A - Substantial question - Determination of whether applicant has a substantial question to be decided against other defendants - Court must ensure effectual and comprehensive adjudication to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - A claim for a share in a partition suit constitutes a substantial question satisfying the requirement of Rule 1-A - Held - Trial Court erred in applying an overly restrictive test and ignoring the wider scope of judicial power - [Paras 16-20].

Civil Law - Procedural Irregularity - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Admission of documents - Trial Court refused to consider existing court records (amendment petition) on the ground that they were not certified copies - High Court held that documents forming part of the court's own record cannot be treated as inadmissible for lack of certification - Held - Irregularity going to the exercise of jurisdiction - [Para 22].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed - Impugned order dated 26.04.2023 set aside - Transposition of defendants as plaintiffs allowed - Suit restored for adjudication on rival claims - Trial Court granted liberty to examine the genuineness of the original plaint and signatures during trial.

Writ Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 107 - Petitioner challenged confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act alleging violation of natural justice and Rule 138B of the CGST Rules - Court found that the adjudicating authority had followed remand directions, supplied necessary documents, and provided personal hearing opportunities - Held - No exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights or lack of jurisdiction exist to bypass the alternative efficacious statutory remedy provided under Section 107 - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 7-9].

Civil Law - Alternative Statutory Remedy - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Section 107 - Grievance regarding non-supply of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) and dissatisfaction with the adjudicatory reasoning - Court held that such matters fall squarely within the appellate framework and do not justify invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Held - Petitioner relegated to pursue statutory appeal - [Paras 10-11].

Writ Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - Rule 138B - Physical verification of conveyance - Petitioner alleged officer lacked jurisdiction and violated Rule 138B - Court upon examination of records found physical verification was carried out by a proper officer authorised by the Commissioner and that procedural due process was followed - Held - Contention of procedural illegality rejected - [Paras 7-7.1].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Civil Law - Government Premises - Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1955 - Section 4 - Unauthorized subletting - Petitioner challenged eviction proceedings alleging the eviction order exceeded the grounds stated in the show-cause notice and violated principles of natural justice - High Court observed that the charge of illegal subletting was common to both the notice and the final order - Held - An eviction order founded on multiple grounds is not vitiated if one of the grounds is valid and independently sufficient to sustain the order - Petitioner failed to show cause against the notice and failed to bring the alleged reply on record before the Trial Court - Petition dismissed - [Paras 18-22].

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference - High Court's role under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty or flagrant abuse of law - Court cannot act as a Court of first appeal to re-appreciate evidence or re-weigh facts - Held - Impugned order of the Trial Court was well-reasoned and based on correct appreciation of evidence - No grounds for interference - [Paras 17-20].

Evidence Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Opportunity to show cause - Petitioner claimed denial of hearing while failing to respond to substantive allegations in the notice - Held - Failure to avail of the opportunity to reply to a show-cause notice precludes a party from claiming violation of natural justice - [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court upheld – Rule discharged.

Writ Law - Advocates Act - Disciplinary Proceedings - Section 35 - Interim suspension - Petitioners were suspended by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh pending disciplinary enquiry while their request for copies of the complaint remained unaddressed - Court observed that the Advocates Act does not empower the Bar Council to pass an interim suspension order prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under Section 35 - Held - Impugned order quashed as being unsustainable in law and contrary to the statutory framework - [Paras 1-10].

Writ Law - Statutory Interpretation - Powers of Bar Council - Section 6 versus Section 35 - Advocates Act 1961 - The Court clarified that functions enumerated under Section 6 of the Act cannot be interpreted as granting plenary powers to pass interim orders - Suspension is a final punitive measure under Section 35(3)(c) and cannot be invoked as an ad-interim measure - Held - Bar Council lacks jurisdiction to place an advocate under suspension pending enquiry - [Paras 6-8].

Writ Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Procedure - Section 35 - Opportunity of hearing - Disciplinary Committee failed to furnish the complaint copy to the petitioners while simultaneously passing a punitive order - Held - Any adverse order by the Disciplinary Committee requires strict adherence to the procedure of notice framing of charges and due trial as prescribed under the Advocates Act - [Paras 4-9].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 26.09.2026 quashed and set aside – Petitioners directed to appear on the next date of hearing – Bar Council directed to provide necessary documents to the petitioners upon request.

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 118 and 139 - Rebuttal of statutory presumption - Petitioner-accused was convicted by trial court and appellate court for offence under Section 138 NI Act - In revision petitioner contended that impugned cheque was misplaced in 1996 and intimated to Bank- Complainant used said cheque in 2000 after company faced insolvency proceedings - High Court observed that while accused did not file police complaint regarding theft he provided evidence of intimation to Bank and highlighted lack of documentation for final settlement despite prior documented dealings - Held - Petitioner successfully rebutted statutory presumption by preponderance of probabilities creating reasonable doubt about existence of legally enforceable debt - Conviction set aside - [Paras 6-22].

Criminal Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Scope of interference - High Court examined whether concurrent findings were perverse or ignored relevant evidence - Court noted that Appellate Court failed to assess the impact of missing documentation and the suspicious timing of cheque issuance amidst bank recovery proceedings against the company - Held - Revisional court empowered to interfere where lower courts committed error in assessing facts leading to miscarriage of justice - [Paras 10-11 22].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 118 and 139 - Preponderance of probabilities - Accused need not prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt but only raise a probable defence to shift onus back to complainant - Held - Cumulative circumstances including intimation of loss of cheque to bank and initiation of proceedings after company's financial crisis constitute a sufficient case for rebuttal - [Paras 13-21].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner acquitted – Sureties released – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Civil Law - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 - Sections 4 5 and 9 - Eviction of unauthorised occupants - Petitioners challenged eviction order issued by railway authorities regarding Survey No 1937 and 1938 - Petitioners sought stay in appellate proceedings before District Judge citing status quo orders from Waqf Tribunal - District Judge rejected stay finding discrepancy in survey numbers and prior settled title - High Court examined scope of Article 227 and affirmed that subordinate courts act within jurisdiction when rejecting stay in face of res judicata - Held - No merit in petition as petitioners failed to prove possession or title superior to Union of India - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-15].

Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Principles of interference - High Court's power of superintendence is not appellate and must be exercised sparingly - Interference restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of jurisdiction - High Court cannot substitute its own view for that of subordinate court merely because alternative view is possible - Held - Order of District Judge reflects judicial application of mind and does not warrant interference under Article 227 - [Paras 12-14].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Constructive Res Judicata - Previous adjudication - Earlier litigation in Case No 53/2007 settled that Survey Nos 1938 and 1939 belong to Union of India excluding specific 9743 sq ft of Waqf land - Current attempt to re-litigate title of these survey numbers through individual members constitutes abuse of process - Held - Principle of res judicata bars re-agitation of title claims - [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order of the Principal District Judge, Ujjain, upheld – Parties directed to maintain the legal status as established by the prior binding adjudications.