Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Attempt to Murder – Petitioner-husband sought quashing of Sessions Case No.20 of 2024 under Sections 324, 326, 307 IPC on the basis of compromise deed with wife (Respondent No.3), the complainant – Allegations related to physical assault with knife – Chargesheet filed, but during trial parties amicably settled the matter through mediation and executed compromise on 11.08.2025 – Held: Though offence under Section 307 IPC is serious and non-compoundable, Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC where parties settle disputes of personal nature voluntarily – No public interest involved – Allegations arose from domestic quarrel with no premeditated intent – Proceedings quashed to secure ends of justice and restore peace between spouses [Paras 2–4, 7–11].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Offences of personal nature – Reliance placed on Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 10 SCC 303 and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. (2025) 4 SCC 78 – Court noted that many domestic disputes are wrongly escalated under Section 307 IPC – In the present case, compromise was genuine, voluntary and aimed at rebuilding marital relationship – Continuation of proceedings would be counterproductive – Held: High Court's inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure justice [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Sessions Case No. 20 of 2024 under Sections 324/326/307 IPC pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Shillong, quashed – Criminal petition allowed [Paras 12–13].

Land Laws – Validity of Housing Site Allotment (Patta) – Requirement of Prior Approval – Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act – Petitioner claimed title over land based on a Patta allegedly granted by the Gram Pradhan in 1973/1981 without producing the actual lease deed or Form 49-F – Held: Section 122-C(2), introduced by the 1971 Amendment, mandates prior approval of the Assistant Collector for any allotment of housing sites – This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, not directory – The contention that prior approval was introduced only in 1975 via Rule amendment is incorrect as the substantive statutory provision existed since 1971 – Any Patta issued without such approval is void ab initio and unenforceable – Paras [76-78], [86-87], [89(ii)].

Land Laws – Eligibility for Allotment – Order of Preference – Petitioner’s father was an Ex-Army personnel belonging to the General Category – Held: Under Section 122-C(3), preference is given to SC/ST, OBC, and General Category persons living below the poverty line – The Petitioner’s father did not fall within any eligible category for preferential allotment of housing sites – No legal allotment could have been made in his favor – Paras [89(vi)].

Administrative Law – Procedure for Allotment – Adherence to Statutory Mode – Petitioner relied on receipts issued by Gram Pradhan and entries in Parivar Register made by the Pradhan – Held: When a statute prescribes a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone (Rule in Taylor v. Taylor) – Entries in the Parivar Register can only be made by the Secretary under the relevant Rules, not the Pradhan – Receipts issued without following the procedure of Rules 115-L to 115-O (public announcement, LMC meeting, drawing of lots) hold no evidentiary value – Paras [75], [89(iii)-(v)].

Civil Law – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner concealed details of prior civil suits and the fact that the land was acquired by LDA and compensation paid to recorded tenure holders – Held: Jurisdiction under Article 226 is equitable and discretionary – A litigant who suppresses material facts or approaches the Court with unclean hands plays fraud on the Court – Such petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold without considering merits – Suppressio veri, expressio falsi applies – Paras [80-85], [89(vii)].

Property Law – Encroachment vs. Title – Cancellation of Void Documents – Petitioner argued that the Patta was never cancelled – Held: Cancellation presupposes the existence of a validly issued document – Since the alleged Patta was void ab initio due to lack of competence and statutory compliance, it never legally existed – The Petitioner’s status is that of an encroacher on government land acquired by LDA – Paras [87], [89(i)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The Court upheld the LDA's actions as lawful, declaring the petitioner an encroacher with no valid title - Paras [89-90].

Trade Marks – Rectification – Jurisdiction – Ext.P17 Trademark registered at Mumbai Registry – Section 57 allows rectification only before the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the concerned Trade Marks Registry – Following PAS Agro Foods and Madras High Court in Woltop India – Held: Kerala High Court lacks jurisdiction; petition rejected [Paras 2-3, 5-11].

Trade Marks Act – Rectification Petition – Jurisdiction – Section 57 – Ext.P17 Trademark Certificate issued by Registrar, Mumbai – Held: Only the High Court having appellate jurisdiction over the Mumbai Trade Marks Registry (i.e., Bombay High Court) can entertain rectification – Kerala High Court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 2-3, 11].

Interpretation of “the High Court” – Definite Article – Court followed PAS Agro Foods v. KRBL Ltd. and Woltop India Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) – Use of “the” High Court in Sections 47 & 57 shows legislative intent to confer jurisdiction on specific High Courts linked to respective TM Registries—Not all High Courts generally [Paras 3, 5-10].

Trade Marks Rules – Appropriate Office – Rule 4 & Rule 5 – Jurisdiction depends on principal place of business of registered proprietor as entered in register—Not altered by subsequent changes—Thus rectification should be consolidated before the proper forum to avoid conflicting orders and “jurisdictional chaos” [Paras 3, 7].

Dynamic Effect Argument – Rejected – Petitioner argued that rectification may be required in multiple jurisdictions due to conflicting registrations—Court held such rare scenarios cannot override statutory scheme—Rectification jurisdiction cannot be expanded beyond text of Sections 47, 57 and Rules 4, 5 [Paras 4-5, 9-10].

Precedent – PAS Agro Foods (Kerala HC) – Followed – Court reaffirmed that rectification petitions must be filed where the trademark is registered—No reason to depart from established view [Paras 2-3, 10-11].

Decision – Special Jurisdiction Case rejected as not maintainable – Petitioner free to pursue remedy before appropriate authority/competent High Court with jurisdiction over Mumbai Trade Marks Registry [Para 11].

Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Withdrawal After Acceptance – Rule 66(5) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1986 – Petitioner, a Medical Officer, sought voluntary retirement effective 4 July 2023, later attempted to withdraw it before acceptance and again after retirement alleging depression – Retirement duly accepted by competent authority – Held: Once resignation/voluntary retirement is accepted and comes into effect, employee ceases to be in service and cannot seek reinstatement – Doctrine of locus poenitentiae applies only before effective retirement date – No procedural illegality found [Paras 5–8, 17–18].

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Mental Disability – Applicability to Voluntary Resignation – Petitioner’s contention that her depression constituted “mental illness” under Section 2(5) of the Act raised for first time in writ petition – No medical certificate or contemporaneous evidence of disability produced – Held: Plea of disability cannot be raised belatedly to nullify valid retirement – Authorities had no obligation to infer mental incapacity absent medical record [Paras 9–11, 17].

Administrative Tribunal – Scope of Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Tribunal rightly held that resignation was validly processed – High Court refused to reappreciate factual findings in absence of perversity or illegality [Paras 8, 18].

Disabilities Act – Section 47 and 20 – Non-Applicability – Remedy Before Commissioner – Court held that if petitioner genuinely claimed protection as a disabled person, she ought to have approached the Commissioner under Disabilities Act – Failure to do so confirmed that plea was afterthought following dismissal before Tribunal [Paras 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Direction Contrary to Statutory Rules – High Court reiterated that it cannot direct authorities to act in violation of service rules – State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309 applied [Para 19–20].

Precedents Distinguished – Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board (AIR 2008 SC 990), Kunal Singh v. Union of India (AIR 2003 SC 1623), and Geetaben Ratilal Patel v. District Primary Education Officer (AIR 2013 SC 3092) held inapplicable as those cases involved established disabilities existing during service; petitioner’s claim arose post-retirement [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No ground to interfere with MAT order – Rule discharged – No costs [Para 22].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34 - Setting aside arbitral award - Appellant-contractor was awarded road work of bituminous carpet to be executed between 25.03.1995 and 24.09.1995 - Respondent failed to supply required bitumen from commencement till 01.12.1995 - Sole Arbitrator partly allowed claim granting compensation of Rs. 100000 on expected profit criteria and dismissed remaining claim - Objecting Court dismissed objections under Section 34 - Appellant contended that arbitrator failed to compensate damages post-24.09.1995 - High Court found that appellant led no evidence to substantiate damages after 25.09.1995 - Arbitrator is the sole judge of quality and quantity of evidence - Award did not suffer from patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the record - Scope of interference under Section 34 is strictly circumscribed and Court cannot reappraise evidence or substitute its view - Held - Objecting Court rightly dismissed Section 34 petition - Arbitral award confirmed - Appeal dismissed - [Para refs not available].

Civil Law - Scope of Interference - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 31(3) and 34 - Arbitrator as sole judge of evidence - Court hearing objections cannot act as an appellate court to reappraise material or substitute its own findings - Award can be interfered with only when it suffers from statutory illegality under Section 31(3) or an error apparent on the face of the record - Arbitrator being a technical expert decided the claims based on the record - Held - No perversity or error of law in arbitral award or lower court order - [Para refs not available].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dismissing Section 34 objections and the arbitral award dated 07.09.2010 affirmed.

Service Law - Homoeopathic Medical College - Approval of Appointments and Inter Se Seniority - Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Direct Payment System - Staff Fixation - Sub-delegation of Administrative Power - Violation of Natural Justice - Appellant appointed as Tutor in Materia Medica Department on 01.01.2003 and regularised w.e.f. 10.01.2003 under the Special Rules prior to execution of Direct Payment Agreement dated 21.06.2003 - Earlier Division Bench judgment directed that before finalising staff pattern/fixation proposals submitted by the Manager, the Government must afford an opportunity of hearing/representation to affected teachers - Government instead relegated this adjudicatory function to the University via Government Order dated 24.09.2016 - University thereafter issued order dated 04.08.2018 approving proposals and altering appellant's seniority below respondents 7 to 9 without granting her a hearing - Single Judge dismissed appellant's writ petition on the ground that the challenge was not confined to her department and that all affected incumbents were not impleaded - Held, the explicit judicial mandate required the Government itself to finalise the proposal and implement its decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to similarly situated affected persons - Government could not have abdicated or delegated its decision-making duty to the University - University passed the approval order after hearing the management alone behind the back of affected teachers - Orders passed by the Government and University to the extent of approving appointments/promotions of the appellant and private respondents cannot be sustained - Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition - Impugned orders set aside in part and matter remitted to the Government for fresh consideration - Paras 6-11.

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment dated 14.03.2025 of the Single Judge set aside - Government Order dated 24.09.2016 and University Order dated 04.08.2018 set aside to the extent of approval granted to the appointments/promotions of the appellant and respondents 7 to 9 - Government directed to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

Service Law - Regularisation of Contractual Teachers - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 - Sections 7, 8 and 24 - Absorption against substantive posts - Petitioners engaged on contractual basis as full-time and part-time teachers in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas for periods ranging from 2 to over 15 years through selection process - Petitioners subjected to renewals for 11 months and 29 days with one-day artificial breaks and paid paltry honorarium of Rs.12790 per month yielding Rs.9592 in hand after EPF deductions - Petitioners claimed regularisation and parity of remuneration with regular State teachers - State resisted claiming scheme is centrally sponsored with shared funding and lacking sanctioned posts - High Court observed scheme subsists for over two decades and work is perennial in nature - High Court applied Supreme Court precedents establishing that continuous service over prolonged periods creates deemed substantive posts and doctrine of pay and recover applies against Centre - Held - State directed to sanction and create regular posts within four months - frame service conditions at par with regular teachers - consider claims of petitioners for regularisation based on qualification and length of service - revise honorarium periodically at par with State teachers - interim honorarium fixed at Rs.17000 per month with service protections under Section 24(2) of RTE Act - writ petitions disposed of - [Paras 1-75].

Constitutional Law - Forced Labour and Begar - Constitution of India - Article 23 - Paltry Honorarium to Long-Serving Contractual Teachers - State engaged qualified teachers for perennial public education in remote areas under Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan while paying remuneration lower than semi-skilled wages - Employment contract strictly barred teachers from taking up any other part-time or whole-time vocation - State defended contractual terms and fixed honorarium as policy matters - Held - economic compulsion forcing employees to render service at meagre rates constitutes forced labour and begar prohibited under Article 23 - unilateral depression of wages coupled with bar on outside employment forms a coercive cage - State as model employer cannot exploit unequal bargaining power of vulnerable employees - [Paras 34-44, 49-50, 67-70].

Constitutional Law - Model Employer and Equality - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Unconscionable Contracts and Perpetual Adhocism - Long-serving teachers subjected to standard-form contracts with termination clauses without notice - State defended non-regularisation based on contractual acceptance and absence of sanctioned posts - Held - State being a model employer possesses heightened obligation to act with fairness - unequal bargaining between State as lion and citizen employee as lamb creates structural inequality requiring judicial protection - contractual labels cannot override constitutional guarantees or constitute waiver of fundamental rights - continuous adhocism to discharge recurring statutory functions violates Article 14 - [Paras 46-50].

Education Law - Right to Quality Education - Constitution of India - Article 21-A - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 - Sections 2(n), 8(g) and 24 - Infrastructure and Parity of Teaching Standards - KGBVs classified as recognised schools under Section 2(n) imparting education to underprivileged rural girls - State provided well-paid regular teachers in government schools while staffing KGBVs with underpaid insecure contractual teachers - Held - right to education under Article 21-A inherently encompasses quality education which depends on qualified secure teachers - discriminatory employment conditions in disadvantaged schools undermine the mandate of RTE Act - ends of promoting girl child education cannot be achieved through exploitative means violating Part III of Constitution - purity of means is essential to constitutional governance - [Paras 31, 51-69].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – State directed to create posts within four months, frame service rules at par with regular teachers, consider regularisation of petitioners, pay interim honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month, and extend Section 24(2) RTE Act protection.

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113B - Ingredients - Cruelty or Harassment "Soon Before Death" - Distinction Between Husband/Parents and Other Relatives - Deceased suffered 100% burn injuries and died within two years of marriage - Appellants were brother-in-law (bhainsur) and sister-in-law (gotani) of deceased - Specific overt acts of pouring kerosene and igniting matchstick attributed solely to mother-in-law and husband - Appellants alleged to be mere passive bystanders who failed to intervene or rescue - Absence of specific demand of dowry or distinct cruelty attributed to appellants - Section 34 IPC not invoked by trial court - Held, to sustain conviction under Section 304B IPC, prosecution must establish that victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused in connection with dowry demand soon before death - Tendency to rope in all relatives of husband by general and exaggerated allegations must be discouraged - Mere passive presence at the scene without any overt act, active participation, or invocation of constructive liability under Section 34 IPC cannot establish criminal culpability - Rebuttable presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act not triggered against appellants in absence of foundational proof of cruelty or harassment - Conviction set aside on benefit of doubt - Paras 44-72, 94-100.

Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Discrepancies in Witness Testimony - Normal vs. Material Discrepancies - Principle of "Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus" - Maxim has no application in India and operates merely as a rule of caution - Duty of court to separate grain from chaff - Normal discrepancies arising from error of observation, memory, or shock do not corrode prosecution case, whereas material discrepancies corrode credibility - Where two views are possible on the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted - Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof beyond reasonable doubt - Paras 73-76, 88-95.

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside - Appellants acquitted of charges under Section 304B IPC and discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

Civil Law - Suit for Recovery - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Proof of Loan Transaction - Admission of Receipt of Money - Defense of Adjustment - Appellant filed suit for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- advanced as friendly loan via banking channel - Respondent admitted receipt of amount in written statement but pleaded settlement and adjustment against another commercial transaction - Respondent stopped appearing, was proceeded ex parte, did not cross-examine appellant, and led no evidence - Trial Court dismissed suit citing lack of certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for bank statement and minor discrepancies - Held, proving of bank statement would have been necessary if respondent had denied receipt of Rs. 10,00,000/- from appellant - Respondent did not deny receipt of amount in written statement and took defence of adjustment - In light of defence taken, it was incumbent upon respondent to enter witness box and lead evidence to prove adjustment - Unrebutted testimony of plaintiff and admission of receipt of money sufficient to establish loan - Impugned judgment set aside and suit decreed - Paras 23-40.

Civil Law - Evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B - Computer-Generated Bank Statement - Requirement of strict proof - Necessity where receipt of funds is not disputed - Trial Court de-exhibited bank statement of appellant showing debit entry of Rs. 10,00,000/- for non-compliance with Section 65-B - Held, formal proof of bank statement in terms of Section 65-B of Evidence Act or Bankers' Books Evidence Act is necessary only when the transaction or receipt of amount is denied - Where receipt of funds is admitted in pleadings with a plea of discharge or adjustment, technical non-compliance in proving bank statement cannot defeat the suit - Paras 29-31.

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment and decree of Trial Court set aside - Suit decreed in favour of appellant for Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of suit till realization - Decree sheet directed to be drawn.