Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Obscene Posts on WhatsApp – Insult to Modesty of Woman – Sections 509 and 201 IPC, Section 67 IT Act, Section 120(o) Kerala Police Act – The petitioner/accused, a former hotel employee, posted sexually coloured obscene messages targeting CW1 (Human Resources Manager) in a WhatsApp group of present and past employees of the hotel, referring to her private parts and portraying her as a lady of loose morals – He thereafter deleted the posts from his mobile phone to destroy evidence – Held: Prima facie offences under Sections 509 and 201 IPC, Section 67 of the IT Act, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act are made out – Petition devoid of merit – Dismissed [Paras 2, 5, 6].

Section 509 IPC – Insult to Modesty – WhatsApp Group – Victim Not a Member – Irrelevance – The petitioner contended that Section 509 IPC is not attracted as CW1 was not a member of the WhatsApp group where the objectionable posts were made – Held: Since the posts were published in a group of present and past colleagues of CW1, it was obvious that the act was done with the intention to insult her modesty, as she would inevitably come to know of the posts – Mere non-membership of the victim in the WhatsApp group does not exclude applicability of Section 509 IPC [Para 5].

Destruction of Evidence – Section 201 IPC – Deletion of Posts from Mobile Phone – The petitioner deleted the objectionable posts from his mobile phone after publishing them, with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence – Held: Such deliberate deletion constitutes the offence under Section 201 IPC – Allegations in the final report and accompanying records prima facie establish the offence [Para 6].

Obscenity – Section 67 IT Act – Electronic Media – Trial Court's Role – The act of making obscene posts through electronic media with intent to insult CW1's modesty prima facie attracts Section 67 of the IT Act – Whether the comments constitute obscenity is a question of fact to be decided by the Trial Court after recording evidence – High Court cannot adjudicate the same in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 6].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 471/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Maradu, to continue.

Succession Law – Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non – Sections 258 & 259 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Dispensation Upheld – When an application is made under Sections 258 and 259, a Probate already exists in respect of the Will, and all objections from next of kin would have been considered at the stage of the original grant – In such circumstances, fresh citation to next of kin can be dispensed with – Court held that Order dated 21.08.2009 dispensing with service of citation was correct and valid – Appellant Nandu had previously withdrawn his Caveat and signed a letter to the Prothonotary confirming the Will and consenting to Probate – Held: Service of citation in a Section 258-259 petition is not mandatory where next of kin had already consented or withdrawn their caveats at the original grant stage [Paras 36-39]

Rule 397, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules – Applicability – Distinguished – Rule 397 mandates notice to all heirs and next of kin except those who have filed consent affidavits – However, this Rule in the context of Section 259 applies to the original grant and not to a subsequent petition for Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non where Probate has already been granted after due consideration of objections – Reliance by Appellant on Pooja Deepak Patil vs. Savita Vasantrao Patil, (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 3879 held to be distinguishable as that case related to an original Probate grant, not a Section 258-259 application [Paras 33-34, 41-42]

Revocation of Probate – Delay – Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – Appellant claimed knowledge of T&IJ Petition No.445 of 2008 and the Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non grant only a few months before filing the Misc. Petition in 2017-18 – Court rejected this claim noting that public notices were issued in three newspapers in June 2010, five registered Deeds of Transfer were executed in June 2010, sons of Vijay had responded to the public notice in July 2010, and Pratap had adopted proceedings in Suit No.438 of 1951 setting out the grant – Alleged harassment by Pratap and sons being young held to be unsupported by evidence and not valid grounds for delay – Held: Miscellaneous Petition was correctly dismissed on the ground of delay [Paras 43-47]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 19.08.2019 (as corrected by Order dated 05.09.2019) dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No.18 of 2018 upheld – Order dated 21.08.2009 dispensing with service of citation in T&IJ Petition No.445 of 2008 upheld – No order as to costs

Succession Law – Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Wills Executed Abroad – Two Wills dated 05.04.1999 and 17.04.1999 executed by Dr. M. Leela Rama Krishna Prasad (testator), a doctor settled in the USA, in favour of a private charitable trust were challenged as unproved and surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Trial Court disbelieved the Wills and granted a half share to the testator's widow Smt. Padmaja – On appeal, Division Bench found that D.W.4 (attending physician and attestor), an independent and credible witness of impeccable standing, had proved the execution of the Will dated 17.04.1999, satisfying the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Held: The Will of 17.04.1999 is proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad in India to devolve in accordance with the said Will [Paras 23–66].

Proof of Will – Testamentary Capacity – Sound and Disposing Mind – Testator Hospitalised – The testator executed the Will of 05.04.1999 in the afternoon at D.W.4's residence, prior to his hospitalisation in the evening on account of chest pain – Medical records (Ex.A7) showed the testator was actively participating in decisions about his treatment and was improving; doctors had contemplated discharge on 18.04.1999 – Evidence of P.W.2 (forensic specialist) opining that heavy sedation impaired the testator's mental capacity was insufficient to rebut the medical records – Held: Testator was in a sound and disposing mind at the time of executing both Wills [Paras 37–39].

Proof of Will – Custody of Will – Attestation by Indian Consulate in San Francisco – Affidavit of Widow Acknowledging Will – Ambiguity in chain of custody and attestation by the Indian Consulate in San Francisco (instead of Atlanta) noted as suspicious circumstances – However, Smt. Padmaja's own affidavit dated 31.01.2000 (Ex.B6) acknowledged execution of the Will of 17.04.1999 and its attestation by the Consulate – Widow's legal notice of 11.01.2002 sought copies of Wills rather than denying their existence – Held: Taking an overall view, the Wills were executed by Dr. Prasad and reflect his wishes; suspicious circumstances do not warrant rejection [Paras 40–51, 66].

Proof of Will – Non-Examination of Second Attesting Witness – Section 68 Evidence Act – Will of 17.04.1999 attested by D.W.4 and Dr. Amaraneni Swarajya – Only D.W.4 examined – Held: Section 68 requirements are satisfied upon examination of at least one attesting witness alive, subject to process of Court, and capable of giving evidence – Non-examination of K.R.K. Murthy (who was an attesting witness to the Will of 05.04.1999) not fatal, as the Will of 05.04.1999 was superseded by the Will of 17.04.1999 [Paras 34–35].

Proof of Will – Foreign Will – Probate in Foreign Country – Section 213 and 228, Indian Succession Act – Contention that a Will executed in USA must first be probated in an American court before it can be produced in India – Held: Section 228 operates in a situation where a Will already probated abroad cannot be produced in original, and permits letters of administration on certified copy – It does not prohibit production of a Will executed outside India before an Indian court without foreign probate – Courts in Andhra Pradesh do not have jurisdiction to grant probate; hence, Wills executed by Hindus for properties in Andhra Pradesh can always be proved in civil proceedings without probate [Paras 55–59].

Proof of Will – Hague Convention – Conflict of Laws – Form of Testamentary Dispositions – Will executed in USA, relating to immoveable properties in India – Held: Under the Convention on the Conflict of Laws relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (1961), a testamentary disposition is valid as to form if it complies with the law of the place where the immoveable properties are situated – Will of 17.04.1999 being in conformity with Indian law is valid; Convention does not bar its production before an Indian court [Paras 59–61].

Lok Adalat – Challenge by Writ Petition – Jurisdiction – Fraud – Awards obtained by Lok Adalat at Eluru in O.S.Nos.445 and 446 of 2019 directed Sri Hemanth Kumar to execute sale deeds in favour of third parties in respect of properties belonging to the estate of Dr. Prasad – Sri Hemanth Kumar had suppressed the pendency of the appeal, the preliminary decree in O.S.No.69 of 2002, and the fact that he had no individual title over the property – Settlement was entered into in individual capacity, not as power of attorney holder – Held: Such suppression of material facts and deliberate misleading of the Lok Adalat amounts to fraud vitiating the awards – Awards set aside [Paras 71–73, 101–103].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction of Court – Section 17 CPC – Cause of Action – Properties Situated in Different Districts – Suits filed in Eluru in relation to properties situated both in West Godavari District and Vijayawada Rural Mandal – Cause of action pleaded pertained only to interference over West Godavari property – No cause of action pleaded in relation to Vijayawada properties – Held: Court in Eluru had no jurisdiction over properties in Vijayawada Rural Mandal; Lok Adalat constituted for Eluru court consequently lacked jurisdiction to pass awards in relation to Vijayawada properties [Paras 94–99].

Public Charitable Trust – Existence – Registration – Endowments Act – Trust created by Will of 17.04.1999 for benefit of mother of testator and thereafter for education and health of deserving persons – Trust never registered with Endowments Department – Held: Under Section 1(3) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, all public charitable institutions whether registered or not fall within the Act – Absence of registration does not prevent trust from coming into existence – Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and has come into existence [Paras 76–83].

Public Trust – Joinder of Trustees – Juristic Entity – Section 14 and 29, Endowments Act – Whether all trustees must join in all proceedings – Held: Under Section 14 of the Endowments Act, trust property vests in the institution, conferring juristic personality – Under Section 29(3)(b)(iii), the Executive Officer shall sue or be sued in name of the institution – In absence of an Executive Officer, Trustee can file proceedings – Writ Petitions filed by Trustee on behalf of Trust held maintainable [Paras 84–88].

Sale Deeds – Writ Petition – Registration Act – Sections 81 and 82 – Scope of Enquiry – Enquiry initiated under Section 81 and 82 of the Registration Act into deeds of sale (Doc. Nos. 3567 and 3568 of 2023) executed after death of principal – Held: Sections 81 and 82 do not independently empower cancellation of registered documents – Enquiry may proceed to ascertain infractions and for punitive purposes – Declaration of nullity of a document is within exclusive domain of civil court – Petitioners relegated to O.S.No.1692 of 2023 already filed for cancellation of sale deeds [Paras 89–92, 105–107].

Remand – Implead Petitioners – Rights of Agreement Holders – Agreements of sale executed by power of attorney holder of Dr. Prasad in favour of third parties prior to testator's death – Question of whether power of attorney coupled with interest survived death of principal left open – Held: Rights of implead petitioners over lands under agreements of sale and their possession to be adjudicated afresh by trial court on remand – Scope of enquiry restricted to this aspect only; validity of Will not to be reopened [Paras 116–128].

Decision: AS Nos.645 of 2013 and 707 of 2014 – Will of 17.04.1999 held proved and valid – Properties of Dr. Prasad to devolve in accordance with said Will – Implead petitioners impleaded as respondents for limited purpose – Matters remanded to trial court for determining rights of implead petitioners over claimed lands – W.P. Nos. 3325 & 3807 of 2020 and 15383, 15403 of 2021 allowed; Lok Adalat Awards dated 21.01.2020 set aside – W.P. No. 13966 of 2023 dismissed; Trust at liberty to pursue O.S. No. 1692 of 2023 – W.P. No. 16510 of 2023 disposed of with direction that Section 81/82 enquiry may proceed within its limited scope – C.C. No. 5225 of 2023 closed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Criminal complaint arising out of landlord–tenant/property dispute – Petitioners sought quashing of complaint case alleging offences under Sections 447/448/504/506/379/34 IPC – Civil suits between parties regarding declaration of tenancy, possession and injunction already pending – Held: Where allegations are omnibus, lack specific role attribution and arise from a longstanding civil dispute over possession of premises, continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of court – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 12-15, 18-20].

Civil Dispute vs Criminal Liability – Property/Tenancy Dispute – Opposite party claimed tenancy in respect of a chamber allegedly inherited from his father while petitioners asserted that original tenancy was in favour of father for a shop room and that opposite party was a trespasser – Several civil suits including suits for declaration, injunction and defamation pending between parties – Held: Determination whether opposite party is tenant or trespasser is purely within domain of civil court and criminal process cannot be used to settle such civil disputes unless essential ingredients of offences are made out [Paras 12-14, 18].

Complaint Allegations – Omnibus Accusations – Lack of Specific Role – Complaint alleged that petitioners trespassed into chamber and threatened complainant – However complaint did not specify individual role of accused persons and contained general allegations against four persons including an aged woman – Investigation materials also did not disclose acts constituting alleged offences – Held: Absence of specific allegations and supporting materials indicates that ingredients of alleged offences are not prima facie made out [Para 15].

Magistrate’s Order Taking Cognizance – Application of Mind – Magistrate issued process after examining complainant under Section 200 CrPC without adequately scrutinizing whether allegations and supporting materials disclosed commission of offence – Complaint itself silent about certain allegations later stated in deposition – Held: Issuance of process is a serious matter and requires judicial application of mind; failure to do so vitiates the proceedings [Para 15].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Prevention of Abuse of Process – High Court empowered under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where criminal prosecution is used as instrument of harassment or private vendetta – When materials reveal purely civil dispute and criminal colour has been artificially given, continuation of proceedings is liable to be interdicted [Paras 14, 16, 19].

Decision: Criminal Revisional Application Allowed – Complaint Case No. 1892 of 2023 pending before the 9th Court Judicial Magistrate, Alipore under Sections 447/448/504/506/379/34 IPC quashed – Proceedings held to be abuse of process of court – No order as to costs.

Income Tax – Section 197 – Certificate for Lower Deduction – Applicable for Entire Assessment Year, Not Merely Prospective – NHAI obtained a certificate under Section 197(1) on 30.06.2008 for AY 2008-09 authorising deduction at 1% – Assessing Officer held that since payments of Rs.19,61,36,514/- were made between 10.04.2008 to 24.06.2008 before the certificate was issued, the deductor was in default for that period and raised demand of Rs.41,89,78,580/- – ITAT allowed the appeal holding that NHAI cannot be held in default – High Court affirmed, holding that under Section 197(2), once a certificate is given, the deductor shall deduct at the rate specified in the certificate until it is cancelled – As per Rule 28AA(2), the certificate is valid for the entire assessment year specified therein – Since income tax assessment is always for an entire assessment year and every provision is applied for the whole year, the certificate under Section 197 covers the entire AY 2008-09 and is not limited to the period post 30.06.2008 – Held: Questions of law answered against the Revenue – NHAI cannot be held as assessee in default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) was rightly deleted [Paras 13-15]

Decision: All Income Tax Appeals (ITA Nos. 32 to 40 of 2014) dismissed – ITAT orders dated 12.09.2013 and 20.09.2013 upheld – NHAI not liable as assessee in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for the period prior to issuance of Section 197 certificate.

Bail – Economic Offences – AP Liquor Scam – Rs.3,500 Crore – Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 sought regular bail in connection with alleged large-scale irregularities in Andhra Pradesh excise policy and APSBCL functioning – Accused No.8 alleged to be an Operations Commander managing kickback collections, coercing distilleries, and facilitating laundering of funds abroad – Accused Nos.35 and 36 alleged to have organised and supervised logistics of cash transportation to influence the AP General Elections 2024 – Held: Gravity of offence alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail where investigation is substantially complete and accused have been in prolonged custody – All three Petitioners entitled to bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 3, 4, 5, 22, 26].

Bail – Principles Governing Grant – Economic Offences – Factors to be Considered – Court reiterated that considerations for grant of bail include: nature and severity of accusation; reasonable apprehension of witness tampering; likelihood of abscondence; character and standing of accused; and larger public interest – Economic offences constitute a class apart warranting cautious approach, particularly for alleged kingpins, given their impact on national financial health and societal fabric – However, even in grave economic offences, bail is not to be denied as an absolute rule; each case must be decided on its own facts [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances – Prolonged Pre-Trial Custody – Article 21 – Charge sheet having been filed and investigation being substantially complete as against the Petitioners, continued pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial was found to infringe the right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Filing of charge sheet, prolonged custody, and absence of material indicating risk of abscondence or interference with trial constitute sufficient changed circumstances to justify grant of bail in successive applications [Paras 19, 21, 24, 26].

Parity – Co-Accused – Bail Not an Absolute Claim – Principle of Parity – Accused No.38, alleged to be closely connected with Petitioners/Accused Nos.35 and 36, had already been granted bail – Other co-accused similarly placed in terms of allegations were also enlarged on bail – Held: Parity is not an absolute right and applies only where roles are similar; however, in the absence of material distinction justifying differential treatment, continued detention of the Petitioners was not warranted – Parity is focused on the role of the accused in the commission of the crime, not merely on the thread of the same offence [Paras 20, 25].

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards – Upon grant of bail, the Petitioners directed to: execute personal bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties; surrender passports; not leave India without Court's permission; report to Investigating Officer every Saturday; not contact prosecution witnesses or co-accused; disclose all movable and immovable properties within two weeks; not alienate properties identified by prosecution; not publish or disseminate information about the crime till conclusion of trial; and furnish active mobile numbers to the Investigating Agency [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 13503 & 13504 of 2025 and 27 of 2026 allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 8, 35 and 36 directed to be released on bail subject to stringent conditions – Observations in the order not to be construed as opinion on the merits of the crime.

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Appeal by Insurance Company and Cross Objection by Claimant – Claimant suffered amputation of left leg after being hit by offending lorry while walking along tram track – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 11,57,000/- with 8% interest – Insurance company challenged income assessment while claimant sought enhancement citing higher income, 86% disability and future medical expenses – Held: Compensation required enhancement considering evidence regarding occupation, future prospects and cost of artificial limb [Paras 3-6].

Assessment of Income – Determination in absence of documentary proof – Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs. 12,000/- – Evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 indicated claimant worked as taxi driver and earned approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month – Court held that such income was reasonable considering nature of occupation – Monthly income reassessed at Rs. 15,000/- and future prospects added at 30% [Paras 7-8].

Disability Assessment – Medical Board Certificate – Certificate indicated 86% disability but members of Medical Board were not examined before Tribunal – Tribunal considered disability at 50% – Held: Tribunal did not commit error in treating functional disability at 50% in absence of examination of medical board members [Para 6].

Computation of Compensation – Future Prospects – Multiplier Method – With reassessed income of Rs. 15,000/- and addition of 30% future prospects, monthly income taken as Rs. 19,500/- – Annual income calculated at Rs. 2,34,000/- – Considering 50% disability and multiplier of 15 for age of 38 years, loss of earning capacity assessed at Rs. 17,55,000/- – Additional Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering, medical expenses including artificial limb and future treatment – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,00,000/- as just and reasonable [Paras 8-9].

Motor Accident Compensation – Modification of Award – Tribunal’s award modified – Claimant held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization – Insurance company directed to deposit amount before Registrar General of High Court within eight weeks – Claimant permitted to withdraw upon completion of formalities [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal and Cross Objection disposed of – Judgment and Award dated 24.11.2015 modified – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 11,57,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of claim petition – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within eight weeks – Claimant permitted to withdraw upon compliance of formalities.

Company Law – Interim Relief – Administration Suit – Plaintiff sought directions to be made joint signatory to bank accounts, deposit of income from estate properties, and restoration of monies allegedly withdrawn from estate – Reliance placed on Commissioner’s Report indicating high cash withdrawals and financial irregularities in company associated with deceased – Held: Commissioner’s report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence at interlocutory stage and defendants must be given opportunity to challenge and test the report through cross-examination and evidence – Interim reliefs refused as they would amount to granting substantially final relief without trial [Paras 24–25, 31].

Company Law – Jurisdiction – Civil Court vis-à-vis NCLT – Plaintiff raised grievances regarding financial management and alleged dissipation of assets of company in which deceased held substantial shareholding – Held: Issues relating to corporate governance, oppression, mismanagement, or functioning of company fall within exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT – Civil court in administration suit cannot grant reliefs interfering with management of company [Paras 29].

Evidence – Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Report of court-appointed commissioner appointed by consent of parties – Held: Mere consent to appointment of commissioner does not imply acceptance of findings as final – Commissioner’s report is not substantive evidence and can be challenged by parties through cross-examination and independent evidence [Paras 24–25].

Corporate Governance – Acquiescence – Plaintiff, a director of the company, had signed financial statements for multiple years after demise of deceased reflecting financial transactions and shareholding structure – Held: Plaintiff cannot prima facie feign ignorance of financial affairs or challenge shareholding structure at interlocutory stage after several years – conduct indicates acquiescence and delay [Paras 26–27].

Interim Relief – Mandatory Directions – Prayer to restore allegedly withdrawn monies and deposit revenues of estate in court – Held: Reliefs are substantially mandatory and near-final in nature – In administration suits such directions ordinarily follow only after determination of rights and accounting – Grant of such relief at interim stage impermissible [Paras 30–31].

Administration of Estate – Interim Financial Arrangement – Court noted earlier ad-interim order directing defendants to pay plaintiff ₹3,00,000 per month – Held: Existing arrangement sufficiently safeguards plaintiff’s financial interests pending suit – No irreparable injury shown as alleged monetary loss can be compensated after accounts are taken [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Interim Application rejected insofar as prayer clauses (c), (f) and (g) are concerned – Statement of defendants recorded that they shall not create third-party rights in respect of estate assets pending suit – Existing arrangement directing payment of ₹3,00,000 per month to plaintiff to continue – Liberty granted to plaintiff to seek enhancement of amount if circumstances so warrant – No order as to costs.

Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Temporary Employees – Denial of Permanency – Petitioners employed as clerks and peons by District Central Co-operative Bank continued on temporary basis for more than a decade despite performing work of permanent and perennial nature – Industrial Court dismissed complaints solely on ground that staffing pattern of the Bank had not been approved – Evidence on record showed that petitioners were appointed against vacant posts, worked continuously without termination, PF contributions were deducted and deposited, and duties were identical to those performed by permanent employees – Bank admitted existence of substantial manpower shortage and perennial nature of work – Held: Continuation of employees as temporary for prolonged period despite existence of vacancies constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Industrial Court erred in ignoring admissions and evidence on record – Impugned award set aside [Paras 28–37, 63–67].

Unfair Labour Practice – Discrimination in Service Conditions – Petitioners paid consolidated wages of Rs.6000–9000 and denied allowances, leave benefits, promotions and other privileges available to permanent employees performing identical work – Bank admitted denial of benefits solely on ground of temporary status – Held: Differential treatment without justification amounts to discrimination attracting Item 5 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act [Paras 5–6, 65–67].

Banking Regulation – NABARD Guidelines – Nature and Binding Effect – Bank relied on NABARD communications and guidelines regarding staffing pattern and recruitment policy claiming that absence of sanctioned staffing pattern prevented regularisation – Court held that Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act empowers inspection and supervisory functions but does not confer authority on NABARD to issue binding directions regarding staffing pattern or service regularisation – Such communications are advisory and do not have statutory force unless backed by specific statutory provision or rule [Paras 39–44].

Co-operative Societies – Power of State Government – Section 79A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Statutory directions regarding management and administration of co-operative societies including staffing pattern can be issued only by State Government under Section 79A – Such directions acquire binding force only when issued in writing upon satisfaction that they are necessary in public interest or for proper management – In absence of any such order on record, employer cannot rely on alleged restriction to deny permanency [Paras 45–52].

Regularisation – Principle under MRTU & PULP Act – Reliance on Supreme Court decision in Casteribe – Industrial and Labour Courts empowered to grant appropriate relief including permanency where employees are deliberately continued on temporary status for years to deny benefits attached to permanent employment – Relief not based merely on long service but on proof of unfair labour practice – Where work is perennial, vacancies exist and employees are continued for years, denial of permanency amounts to unfair labour practice [Paras 55–58].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022 passed by Industrial Court, Nashik quashed and set aside – Respondent Bank held to have engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Bank directed to undertake exercise of regularisation of petitioners against available vacant posts within twelve weeks subject to verification of eligibility – Eligible petitioners to be granted permanency with continuity of service – Regular pay scale and benefits to be granted prospectively from date of regularisation – Bank restrained from terminating petitioners till completion of exercise – Request for stay rejected.