Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Alleged breach of interim injunction restraining interference with possession – Petitioner alleged that respondents entered suit land on 28.05.2021, abused and assaulted him and attempted dispossession despite injunction dated 14.10.2008 – Affidavits of witnesses and FIR No. 232 of 2021 did not disclose actual dispossession or change in possession – Mere entry into land and assault, without proof of willful and intentional disobedience of injunction order, insufficient to constitute civil contempt – Held: Essential ingredient of willfulness not established – Petition dismissed [Paras 22-25].

Injunction Order – Scope and Compliance – Interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (C) in Second Appeal restraining interference with possession – Record shows petitioner continues in possession – No material demonstrating that respondents have taken over possession or committed overt act in violation of specific terms of injunction – Allegations of obstruction and threats, even if true, do not ipso facto amount to contempt unless clear breach of court’s mandate is proved [Paras 15-17, 21-23].

Limitation – Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Bar of one year for initiation of contempt proceedings from date of alleged act – Alleged incident dated 28.05.2021 – Contempt petition filed on 25.02.2025 after more than four years – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Held: Petition hopelessly barred by limitation and not maintainable [Para 27].

Civil Contempt – Requirement of Willful Disobedience – Mere disobedience not sufficient – Element of willingness indispensable – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh – In absence of clear, deliberate and intentional violation, contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Contempt Petition dismissed – No willful disobedience proved – Petition also barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Civil Procedure Code – Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – Conditional Leave – Trial Court dismissed application for leave to defend in money recovery suit filed under Order XXXVII CPC – Revision filed under Article 227 – Discrepancy in amount allegedly transferred – Absence of prima facie proof regarding agreement to pay 24% interest – Defence of payment towards interior design work and plea regarding dishonoured cheques – Held: Defendants raised triable issues warranting grant of leave – However, in absence of supporting documents, conditional leave granted subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- within four weeks – Impugned order set aside [Paras 7–11].

Summary Suit – Proprietary Concern – Legal Status – Amount transferred to account of “I Shines”, a proprietary concern of first petitioner – Contention that payment was not made to petitioner in individual capacity – Held: Proprietary concern not a separate legal entity distinct from its proprietor – Transfer to proprietary concern amounts to payment to proprietor [Para 7].

Dishonoured Cheques – Allegation of Theft – Petitioners contended that cheques were stolen – No police complaint or contemporaneous action taken – Holder of blank cheque entitled to fill up blanks – Whether protection extends to alleged stolen cheque to be decided at trial – Defence found doubtful at this stage [Para 8].

Interest Claim – 24% per Annum – No prima facie material produced to establish contractual stipulation for such rate – Claim of interest raises triable issue requiring evidence [Para 9].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dismissing leave to defend set aside – Conditional leave granted subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- within four weeks – Failing deposit, application for leave to defend to stand automatically dismissed – No costs – Connected CMP closed.

Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Section 2(vi) – Pension under Non-Contributory Superannuation Trust – Whether “Wages” – Employees resigned after completing qualifying years of service – Filed Form-N under Rule 31 claiming pension – Authority held pension payable under trust deed amounts to wages – Single Judge affirmed – Held: Any definite sum payable on fulfilment of employment conditions constitutes wages – Exclusion under Section 2(vi)(3) applies to employer’s contribution to fund, not pension payable from accumulated fund – Pension under trust scheme falls within inclusive definition of wages – Appeals dismissed [Paras 12–18, 22–24].

Jurisdiction – Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 – Competent Authority – Challenge to assumption of jurisdiction – Special statutory forum created for recovery of wages – If subject matter falls within statutory definition of wages, authority has jurisdiction – Civil Court jurisdiction impliedly barred to that extent – No jurisdictional error or erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by Referee – Writ Court rightly declined interference [Paras 15–17, 22–23].

Pension – Effect of Resignation – Superannuation Trust Deed – Eligibility based on completion of 5/10/15/20 years of continuous service – No clause restricting benefit to only superannuated employees – No forfeiture clause upon resignation – Respondents completed qualifying service before resignation – Held: Resignation after crystallization of eligibility does not defeat vested pension rights – Pension treated as earned remuneration and legal right [Paras 11, 19–20].

Definition of Wages – Judicial Interpretation – Scope extends beyond express contractual stipulations – Includes remuneration payable under contract, law, award or instrument upon fulfilment of service obligations – Termination by resignation or superannuation immaterial once entitlement accrues – Pension under trust deed covered within broad interpretation of “wages” [Paras 12–14, 17–18].

Non-Contributory Pension Fund – Legal Character – Employer-funded trust not a discretionary bounty – Once scheme framed and eligibility satisfied, benefit becomes enforceable obligation – Non-contribution by employee affects funding mechanism only – Employer cannot deny disbursement arbitrarily – Pension protected as earned benefit under principles of fairness and administrative law [Para 21].

Maintainability – Form-N Application – Status as “Person Employed” – Eligibility accrues on completion of qualifying service – It is immaterial whether employee continues in service on date of application – Right crystallized upon fulfilment of service slabs under trust deed – Application under Rule 31 maintainable [Para 13, 22].

Decision: MAT 682 of 2025, MAT 683 of 2025, MAT 684 of 2025 and MAT 685 of 2025 dismissed – Judgment dated 11.04.2025 in WPA 1617 of 2025 affirmed – Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by competent authority under West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 upheld – Connected applications (CAN 1 of 2025) disposed of.

Customs – Smuggling – Seizure of Foreign-Origin Cigarettes – 25,01,200 cigarette sticks seized from vehicle and godown – Absolute confiscation ordered under Section 111(d) – Penalty imposed under Section 112(b)(i) – Concurrent findings by Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT – Held: Seizure and confiscation based on detailed Panchnama and un-retracted statements under Section 108 – No infirmity in concurrent findings [Paras 11–15, 17–18].

Section 108 Customs Act – Evidentiary Value – Statements recorded under Section 108 not retracted at any stage – Such statements have binding effect and can be relied upon for confiscation and penalty – Right of cross-examination not absolute – In absence of demonstrated prejudice, denial of cross-examination not fatal [Paras 17, 25].

Burden of Proof – Section 123 Customs Act – Goods of foreign origin seized – Once seizure proved, burden shifts on person from whose possession goods recovered to establish licit import – Appellant failed to discharge statutory burden and remained in denial of seizure and valuation – Held: Authorities justified in drawing adverse inference [Paras 13, 21–22].

Valuation – Market Value Determination – Appellant challenged valuation of cigarettes at Rs.14 per stick – Show cause notice disclosed market survey basis and total market value of Rs.3,50,16,800/- – Once valuation disclosed, burden shifted to appellant to rebut with cogent material – Failure to produce contrary evidence renders valuation sustainable – No substantial question of law arises [Paras 20–22, 24–25].

Section 130 Customs Act – Scope of Appeal – High Court’s jurisdiction confined to substantial question of law – Concurrent factual findings by three authorities cannot be re-appreciated in absence of perversity or legal infirmity – Held: No question of law involved in challenge to valuation, seizure, or penalty – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23–26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – Pending application disposed of.

Arbitration – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Extension of Time – Liquidated Damages – Arbitral Tribunal granted 484 days’ extension on account of adverse geology, law and order issues and inclement weather – Held that findings were based on appreciation of evidence and plausible interpretation of contract – No patent illegality or perversity warranting interference – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or sit in appeal over arbitral findings [Paras 15-18, 30-34, 55].

Contract – Delay and Extension – Clause 27 – Geological Variations – Tribunal found actual rock mass encountered materially different from tender documents – Delay attributable to unanticipated geology, weather conditions and law and order disturbances – Extension computed on basis of proportional analysis of KD-03 and KD-14 – Held: Grant of 484 days’ extension was reasoned and within contractual framework – Not open to interference under Section 34 [Paras 27-29].

Construction Contracts – Critical Path – Determination by Arbitral Tribunal – Main Tunnel Banihal (KD-14) held to be on ‘critical path’ based on sequencing of key dates – Completion of ADIT followed by main tunnel Banihal affected overall project completion – Other tunnels executed concurrently and subsumed within extended period – Held: Determination of critical path by technically qualified Tribunal was plausible and did not amount to rewriting the contract [Paras 41-42, 49-52].

Liquidated Damages – Pre-condition of Delay Attribution – Tribunal held that Engineer must first determine extension of time and attribute delay before levying LD – Deduction of LD prior to proper delay analysis held prima facie illegal and contrary to Clause 27 – Interpretation of contractual clause found to be plausible – No perversity established [Paras 35-38].

Public Utility Contracts – Presumption of Loss – IRCON contended loss presumed in infrastructure contracts – Tribunal found no specific loss proved, supervision costs not exclusively attributable to present delay – Held: Finding on absence of loss was factual and plausible – No interference warranted under Section 34 [Paras 53-54].

Patent Illegality – Tests Applied – Court reiterated principles from Associate Builders, Ssangyong, DMRC and OPG Power Generation – Award cannot be set aside merely because another view is possible – Only perverse findings based on no evidence or ignoring vital evidence are amenable to interference – Present award does not suffer from such defects [Paras 15-16, 34].

Decision: Petition under Section 34 dismissed – Impugned Award upheld – Extension of 484 days and setting aside of liquidated damages sustained – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 55-57].

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Accused armed with gun, farsa, bhala and lathi lay in wait in field and suddenly attacked deceased – Deceased dragged to field and brutally assaulted – Injuries multiple and grievous – Held: Conduct of accused in arriving together armed with deadly weapons, concerted assault and fleeing only after death established common intention – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC justified [Paras 42-44, 57].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Related/Interested Witnesses – PW-2 (complainant), PW-3 and PW-4 eye-witnesses – Minor contradictions natural and not material – Testimony consistent on manner of assault and participation of accused – Mere relationship or village proximity no ground to discard otherwise reliable evidence – Conviction can be based on trustworthy ocular evidence [Paras 38-42, 45-46].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem disclosed multiple lacerated, incised and contused wounds including fractures of skull, ribs and limbs – Doctor opined injuries possible by lathi, farsa and ballam – Medical evidence consistent with ocular account – Brutality of assault established – Prosecution case corroborated [Paras 49-51].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Essence lies in pre-arranged plan and participation in furtherance of common intention – Inference drawn from manner of attack, weapons carried and collective conduct – Even if specific overt act not attributed to each accused, liability attracted where participation and shared intention proved [Paras 43-44].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Parity – One co-accused acquitted on benefit of doubt due to doubtful presence – Held: No automatic parity in acquittal – Where participation of remaining accused proved beyond doubt, conviction sustainable [Para 52].

Procedural Irregularity – Recording Statement under Section 364 CrPC, 1898 instead of Section 313 CrPC, 1973 – Old Code repealed but forms deemed continued under Section 484(2)(b) CrPC, 1973 read with Section 8 General Clauses Act – Mere use of old proforma an irregularity, not illegality – No prejudice shown – Trial not vitiated [Paras 20-23].

Transfer of Case – Alleged Illegality – No High Court transfer order produced – Trial Court recorded that case was transferred by name to same Presiding Officer – Accused consented to disposal – No prejudice demonstrated – Objection rejected [Paras 16-19].

FIR – Prompt Lodging – Incident at 04:00 PM – FIR lodged at 06:45 PM – No delay – FIR not result of deliberation or consultation – Investigation commenced promptly [Para 27].

Motive – Prior Enmity – Deceased and complainant accused in earlier murder of father of accused – Bail granted shortly before incident – Strong and proximate motive – However, in case of direct ocular evidence, motive only corroborative [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants Ram Narain and Ram Uggar @ Ram Ugra under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment confirmed – Appellants directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which coercive steps to be taken – Appeal abated qua deceased appellants Gyanendri and Ram Pher [Paras 58-59].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Relevant date under Section 4 – Reference Court treated 13.01.2005 as relevant date instead of last date of publication i.e. 11.07.2005 – Held: Last date of publication under Section 4(1) is material date – Error apparent on face of record affecting rejection of sale instance [Paras 7, 11].

Comparable Sale Instance – Adjacent Village – Sale deed dated 24.04.2005 (Exh.22) of 77 R land from adjoining village Pachegaon at Rs.2,922/- per Are – Village shares boundary with acquired village – Time proximity established – Held: Exh.22 most suitable exemplar – Appellants entitled to Rs.2,922/- per Are for dry lands – Consequential rate for semi-irrigated lands fixed at Rs.4,383/- per Are – Other exemplars rightly discarded due to dissimilarity or small area [Paras 10-11].

Nature of Land – Irrigated vs Dry – Mere existence of well not sufficient to treat land as fully irrigated – No cogent evidence to classify lands as irrigated – Reference Court erred in partly treating certain lands as irrigated – Classification modified in accordance with evidence [Para 9, 11].

Highest Exemplar – Principle – Court may adopt highest bona fide exemplar if comparable – Reliance on Mehrawal Khewaji Trust – No escalation required where exemplar proximate in time – Enhancement permissible even if claim lower than determined rate – Reliance on Ambya Kalya Mhatra [Paras 12-13].

Pre-Notification Possession – Rental Compensation – Possession taken on 20.12.2003 prior to Section 4 notification dated 11.07.2005 – Held: Instead of remanding for separate determination, appropriate to grant 9% p.a. interest on enhanced compensation from date of possession till date of notification towards rental value – In line with subsequent Supreme Court modification enhancing rate of interest [Paras 14-15].

Statutory Benefits – Delay in Reference – References filed on 18.01.2008 but deficit court fees paid only on 17.06.2011 – Registration delayed till 11.08.2014 – Held: Period from 18.01.2008 to 17.06.2011 attributable to claimants – No statutory benefits for that period – Period from 17.06.2011 to 11.08.2014 attributable to authorities – Claimants entitled to statutory benefits for that period – Public exchequer not to bear burden of claimant’s lapses [Paras 16-18].

Interest under Sections 28 and 34 – Land Acquisition Act – Claimants entitled to statutory interest as per Full Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari [Paras 19(f)].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,922/- per Are for dry lands and Rs.4,383/- per Are for semi-irrigated lands – 9% p.a. interest on enhanced compensation from date of possession till notification towards rental value – Statutory benefits restricted for period attributable to claimants – Award modified accordingly – Reference Court to draw award [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – Non-Cognizable Offence – Permission for Investigation – Issue whether Magistrate can grant permission on application moved by complainant – Section 155(2) restricts police from investigating without Magistrate’s order but does not specify who may move such application – Held: Provision does not bar complainant or aggrieved person from approaching Magistrate – Object is judicial supervision over investigation and not restriction of access to justice [Paras 8-10, 15, 17].

Conflict of Co-ordinate Bench Decisions – Judicial Discipline – Earlier decision in Navin Chandra Pandey held responsibility lies with police to obtain order – Later decision in Brij Lal Bhar clarified that there is no legal bar for first informant to move application under Section 155(2) – Held: In case of divergence between co-ordinate Benches, later decision to be ordinarily followed unless referred to larger Bench – Certainty and consistency in law emphasized – Court followed Brij Lal Bhar [Paras 10-11].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference – Technical Objection – Challenge to investigation on ground that permission under Section 155(2) was sought by complainant and not police – Held: Once Magistrate applied judicial mind and granted permission, investigation not vitiated on such technical ground – No jurisdictional error, abuse of process or miscarriage of justice shown – Interference under Section 482 not warranted [Paras 15-16, 18].

Applicability of Procedural Rules – Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice – Reliance on Vijesh Pillai rejected – Said rules not applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh – In U.P., only requirement is judicial order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – No equivalent statutory rule mandating procedural formalities as in Karnataka [Para 12].

Interpretation of Procedural Provisions – Advancement of Justice – Procedural provisions relating to investigation to be interpreted to advance justice and not frustrate legitimate prosecution – Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation – Technicalities cannot invalidate proceedings absent prejudice [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Permission granted under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. on complainant’s application held valid – Charge-sheet and summoning proceedings not vitiated – Interim order, if any, vacated [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Section 239 CrPC – Scope of consideration – Magistrate required to examine final report and documents forwarded under Section 173 CrPC – Where documents collected during investigation itself establish full repayment of loan prior to filing of charge sheet – Non-consideration of such material renders charge groundless – Revisional Court justified in setting aside order refusing discharge [Paras 1, 7.1-7.4, 2.12].

Bank Loan – Alleged Cheating – Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC – Allegation of availing credit facilities by use of bogus documents in conspiracy with bank officials – Entire loan amount with interest repaid during investigation – ‘No Due Certificate’ issued before submission of charge sheet – Loan account never declared NPA – Held: In absence of wrongful loss to bank or wrongful gain to accused, essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC not made out – Mere allegation of irregular documentation without resultant loss insufficient to sustain prosecution [Paras 2.14-2.18].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Requirement of unlawful agreement resulting in offence or wrongful loss – Where alleged conspiracy did not culminate in any loss to bank and sanction to prosecute bank officials was refused – Prosecution against borrowers alone unsustainable – Charge sheet held groundless [Paras 2.14-2.18].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Charge of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means – No material showing bank suffered pecuniary loss or accused obtained unlawful gain – Continuation of proceedings unjustified [Paras 2.15-2.18].

Repayment/Settlement – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Distinction between cases of partial settlement and complete discharge of liability – Where full repayment including interest made prior to charge sheet and reflected in investigation records – Possibility of conviction remote and continuation of proceedings would be futile – Supreme Court precedents in K. Bharati Devi, Suresh C. Singhal and Hemant S. Hathi applied – Decisions in Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Sarvodaya Highways distinguished on facts [Paras 2.1-2.5, 2.8-2.13].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 22.06.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.466 of 2012 in C.C.No.812 of 2011 set aside – Petitioners discharged under Section 239 CrPC – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 8].