Rent Control Law – Estoppel of Tenant – Challenge to Derivative Title – Context of tenant challenging the title of the landlord who claimed ownership via a Will – Held: Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates a statutory estoppel preventing a tenant from challenging the title of the landlord during the continuance of the tenancy. The petitioner-bank argued that the respondent was merely an executor of the Will and not the owner, thereby lacking locus standi. However, the Court observed that the tenant had voluntarily tendered rent to the respondent after verifying the Will, thereby creating a valid attornment. Once attornment is established and the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted through the payment of rent, the tenant is legally precluded from questioning the validity of the landlord's derivative title or the nature of his ownership (executor vs. owner). [Paras 12, 15]

Rent Control Law – Scope of Eviction Proceedings – Title Dispute – Jurisdiction of Rent Controller – Context of tenant raising complex issues regarding the validity of the Will and probate proceedings – Held: The Rent Controller constitutes a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and does not possess the authority of a Civil Court to adjudicate complex questions of title. In an eviction suit, the landlord is only required to plead and prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and a statutory ground for eviction. If the landlord proves the relationship, the suit must succeed or fail based on the grounds for eviction, regardless of any dispute over the landlord's title. In this case, the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding bona fide requirement and material impairment of the property were upheld, and the title dispute was deemed irrelevant to the eviction outcome. [Paras 11.2, 11.3, 14]

Decision: Petition dismissed. Eviction order upheld. [Para 17]

Criminal Law – Section 406 IPC – Stridhan – Effect of Divorce by Mutual Consent – Complainant filed case for recovery of Stridhan after divorce – Held: Once the marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent based on a settlement, and no liberty is reserved to continue criminal proceedings, the wife is estopped from continuing proceedings against the husband. No dispute survives. Acquittal upheld. [Paras 16-18]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Held: The High Court will interfere with an acquittal only if the judgment is patently perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if the conclusion is one no reasonable person could reach. The Trial Court's view was reasonable and supported by Supreme Court precedents. [Paras 11-12]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. [Para 21]

Constitutional Law – Resignation by Legislator – Inaction by Chairman – Writ maintainable – Petitioner, a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, submitted resignation on 23.11.2024 – Chairman failed to act upon it for over nine months – Held: Under Article 190(3)(b) and Rule 190 of the Council Rules, the Chairman is duty-bound to verify only voluntariness and genuineness of resignation and render a decision within reasonable time – Inaction held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 26, 56, 64, 68]

Discretionary Power – Limits on Constitutional Functionaries – No absolute discretion – Discretion under Article 190(3)(b) and Rule 190 must align with constitutional standards – Use of term “may” in Rule 190(2) interpreted as “must” in light of constitutional intent and Parliamentary debates – Chairman cannot indefinitely delay action on resignation – Time beyond a month unreasonable [Paras 24, 29-33, 60-63]

Judicial Review – Legislative Procedure – Limited scope of interference – Courts may not decide voluntariness/genuineness but may intervene against prolonged delay – Held: Chairman’s prolonged inaction offends Wednesbury reasonableness and constitutional morality – Judicial review available on grounds of arbitrariness [Paras 24, 39, 44, 64-66]

Legislative Practice – Timeline for inquiry into resignation – Based on debates during 33rd Constitutional Amendment, inquiry into voluntariness/genuineness must be completed preferably within a fortnight or, at most, a month – Chairman’s call for personal interaction after one year held unjustified – Court directed completion of process within four weeks [Paras 53, 55, 68]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Chairman directed to complete inquiry into petitioner’s resignation and render a decision within four weeks – Inaction held illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14.

Cybercrime – Bail Denied – Elderly Victims – Digital Arrest – Accused impersonated Cyber Police officials and placed 84-year-old couple under illegal 'digital arrest' – Extorted ₹2.02 crore between 30.04.2025 and 08.05.2025 – Petitioners received ₹45 lakh – Bail applications rejected due to gravity and corroborated financial trail – Court finds petitioners’ claims false and unsupported [Paras 1–8].

Cybercrime Investigation – Structural Weakness in Policing – Court criticises inadequate cyber investigation skills among police – Investigating Officers lack technical training and fail to track layered money trail and crypto transfers – Recommends specialized cybercrime units and IT-qualified Inspectors [Paras 9–17.1].

Judicial Directions – Institutional Reforms – Court orders creation of Rajasthan Cyber Crime Control Centre (R4C) akin to I4C – Directs recruitment of IT Inspectors with technical qualifications – Mandates establishment of accredited digital forensic labs and regular audits of digital transactions in government departments [Paras 26–30].

Public Policy – Regulation of Digital Infrastructure – Court issues 31-point action plan addressing cybercrime across banks, SIM issuance, BPOs, e-commerce platforms, gig economy workers, social media users and children’s phone usage – Emphasises mandatory registration, KYC, AI tools, verification, and accountability to combat digital fraud [Paras 27–38].

Digital Threat – National Challenge – Highlights exponential increase in cyber complaints (from 26,000 in 2019 to over 20 lakh in 2024) with poor FIR conversion – Recognises MHA and I4C’s efforts but urges Rajasthan to build its own cyber defence infrastructure independent of Centre’s support [Paras 17.2–24].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Petitioners to remain in judicial custody – Court directs urgent, multi-level reform across Rajasthan’s investigative, prosecutorial, financial, and social sectors to address growing threat of cybercrime and ensure digital safety

Criminal Law - CrPC – MPDVPK Act – Jurisdiction – Cognizance – Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) CrPC – Offences under Section 394 IPC and Sections 11/13 MPDVPK Act being “specified offences” – Only Special Court competent to take cognizance under Section 8 of MPDVPK Act – Magistrate not empowered to direct registration of FIR for specified offences – FIR and Magistrate’s order quashed – Petition allowed [Paras 10–15].

Criminal Procedure – Section 156(3) CrPC – Stage of Investigation – Distinction between ordering investigation and taking cognizance – Held: Direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is not itself cognizance; however, only a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 CrPC can issue such direction – Since MPDVPK Act excludes Magistrate’s power to take cognizance regarding specified offences, Section 156(3) order also cannot be invoked for such offences [Paras 10, 13].

Special Courts – MPDVPK Act – Sections 6 & 8 – Exclusive jurisdiction – Specified offences – Section 394 IPC expressly included in “specified offence” under Section 2(f)(2)(iii) – Only Special Court can take cognizance of such offences – Magistrate lacks jurisdiction even at pre-cognizance stage for directing registration of FIR in respect of specified offences – Order of Magistrate invalid [Paras 11–14].

Interpretation – Section 2(b) & 2(f) MPDVPK Act – Definition of “dacoit” and “specified offence” – Offences committed in notified dacoity-affected areas fall exclusively within Special Court jurisdiction – Magistrate cannot assume competence merely because investigation is at initial stage [Para 14].

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Magistrate’s order directing registration of FIR for offences under Section 394 IPC and Sections 11/13 of MPDVPK Act set aside – FIR registered pursuant thereto also quashed as being without jurisdiction – Petition allowed [Para 15].

Constitution of India – Article 243-D – Reservation in Local Bodies – Triple Test Compliance – OBC Reservation – Held: The State Election Commission complied with the 'Triple Test' mandated by the Supreme Court in Vikas Gawali – (1) A dedicated Commission was appointed; (2) Rigorous empirical inquiry was conducted (based on 2022 data); (3) Total reservation did not exceed 50% – The court cannot sit in judgment over the correctness of empirical data in writ jurisdiction. [Paras 28-32]

Constitution of India – Article 243-D – Reservation for Scheduled Castes – Proportion to Population – Rounding Off – Held: Reservation must be in proportion to the population – Where the SC population is negligible (0.9%), resulting in a fraction of a seat (0.23) which is less than 0.5, it is rounded off to zero – There is no mandate to reserve "at least one seat" irrespective of population proportion – Non-reservation of seats for SCs in South Goa Zilla Panchayat upheld. [Paras 14, 21-22]

Constitution of India – Article 243-O – Bar to Interference in Electoral Matters – Held: Once the election process has commenced via Notification, the bar under Article 243-O applies – Courts should not interfere to stall elections – Remedy lies in an Election Petition after the elections. [Paras 33-34]

Decision: Petitions dismissed. Rule discharged.

Religious Institution – Classification under Endowments Act – Notification – Appellants challenged inclusion of Yogananda Ashramam as a public religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of A.P. Endowments Act – Evidence showed that Ashramam was established and maintained by founders' family without any public endowment, offerings, or public access – Court found that management was always with the family and public participation was minimal and not as of right – Held: Ashramam not a public religious institution within meaning of Section 2(23) – Notification quashed [Paras 10–22, 26–28]

Natural Justice – Publication under Section 6(c)(ii) – Procedure – Court held that no notice was given to appellants before notification enlisting Ashramam as public religious institution – Violation of principles of natural justice – Held: Notification issued without following Sections 43, 44, and income assessment under Section 65 – Procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable – [Paras 23–25, 28]

Specific Endowment – No Dedication of Property – Settlement deed did not indicate any dedication of property or income for public religious or charitable use – No evidence of specific endowment as per Section 2(25) – Held: Absence of endowment defeats classification as religious institution or temple – [Paras 21–22]

Legal Precedents – Private Religious Institutions – Followed precedents in VVVRK Yechendra v. State of A.P. and Miryala Narayana v. State of A.P. – High Court reiterated that publication under Section 6 must follow registration and hearing of affected parties – Held: Classification made in violation of binding procedural requirements and liable to be struck down – [Paras 23–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Gazette Notification under Section 6(c)(ii) dated 13.07.2000 quashed – Order of Deputy Commissioner dated 25.08.2009 in O.A. No. 42 of 2001 set aside – Ashramam held to be a private institution – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Service Law – Wrongful Pay Fixation – Recovery – Group-D staff performing Group-C duties granted higher pay scale since 2004 – Recovery directed after 10–14 years – Applying Syed Abdul Qadir and Rafiq Masih – Held: Recovery from Group C/D employees, long-delayed and without misrepresentation, is inequitable and arbitrary; impugned memo/order quashed; refunds directed [Paras 23-26].

Service Law – Excess Payment – No Misrepresentation – Petitioners appointed as Rent Collectors (Group-D) but made to discharge Group-C duties due to staff shortages – Municipality granted Group-C scale from 01.08.2004, increments also paid – Held: Excess payment was not a result of any misrepresentation or fraud by petitioners; higher scale was granted by competent authorities and enjoyed for over a decade [Paras 3-8, 13].

Recovery of Excess Salary – Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents – Court relied on Syed Abdul Qadir, Rafiq Masih, and Jogeswar Sahoo – Laid down exceptions where recovery is impermissible: (i) employees in Group C/D; (ii) payments continued over five years; (iii) employees made to work on higher posts; (iv) recovery causing hardship – Held: Present facts squarely covered by all three conditions—recovery impermissible [Paras 15-18, 23-24].

Equity & Hardship – Long-Delayed Recovery – Petitioners received higher scale for 10–14 years; recovery initiated only in 2013/2017 after decades – Such recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 – Particularly because many petitioners were near retirement or had retired; hardship outweighs employer’s right to recover [Paras 23-24].

Refund of Amounts Recovered – Court invoked parity principle – Employees who had already refunded excess amounts must be reimbursed, following Syed Abdul Qadir which mandated refund of amounts earlier recovered by mistake – Directed refund within three months [Para 25].

Administrative Action – Legal Validity – Memo dated 27.05.2013 of Director of Local Bodies and Order dated 01.11.2017 of Chairman, Tarakeswar Municipality directing recovery and re-fixation of pay held illegal and set aside – Orders inconsistent with binding Supreme Court law and principles of fairness [Para 26].

Decision – WPA allowed – Impugned memo and order quashed – No recovery to be made; any recovered amounts to be refunded; all connected applications disposed; interim orders vacated [Paras 26-30].

Employees’ Compensation – Employer–Employee Relationship – Total Lack of Evidence – Commissioner relied solely on FIR/FIS without oral proof – Appellant specifically denied employment – Held: Existence of jurisdictional fact must be proved; matter remanded for fresh evidence; substantial question of law arises [Paras 7-10].

Employees’ Compensation – Jurisdictional Fact – Proof of Employment – Death of worker in quarry – Claimants produced only FIR/FIS and three other documents, no oral evidence – Commissioner accepted employer–employee relationship solely on basis of FIR/FIS – Held: Initial burden to prove relationship lies on claimants; lack of evidence on jurisdictional fact raises substantial question of law [Paras 2, 4, 7].

Evidence – FIR/FIS Not Substantive Proof – FIR/FIS marked without objection, but no witness examined to prove employment – Appellant denied relationship in written statement – Absence of oral evidence is fatal; mere marking of documents does not discharge burden – Commissioner’s reliance on FIR/FIS misplaced [Paras 4, 7].

Precedents – Distinction with Gangan v. Christin Raj – Division Bench decision relied upon by Commissioner held applicable only where adequate evidence is produced – Present case involves no such evidence; hence Commissioner’s reading incorrect [Para 7].

Substantial Question of Law – When Arises – Whether there is total lack of evidence regarding jurisdictional fact is a substantial question of law – Court follows earlier ruling in MFA(ECC) No. 18 of 2024 – Examination of total absence of evidence does not amount to re-appreciation of evidence [Paras 8-9].

Remand – Fresh Consideration Needed – As FIR/FIS and documents were marked without objection, claimants may have believed no further evidence required – Interest of justice and object of the Act require remand to give parties full opportunity to adduce evidence on employer–employee relationship [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Impugned award set aside – Matter remitted to Employees’ Compensation Commissioner – Parties to appear on 15.12.2025; evidence to be completed within four months; Commissioner to pass fresh order within six months – Deposited amount to remain intact till disposal [Para 10].