Criminal Revision – Cognizance and Framing of Charge – Scope of Interference – Revision filed challenging order of cognizance dated 22.10.2021 and order framing charge dated 24.01.2024 under Section 306 IPC – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is limited and interference warranted only when orders suffer from patent illegality or perversity [Paras 2, 9, 41–42].

Cognizance – Alleged Discrepancy in Dates – Chargesheet and Order Taking Cognizance – Argument that cognizance was taken on 22.10.2021 whereas chargesheet bears endorsement dated 23.10.2021 – Court declined to accept hyper-technical plea – Held: Minor discrepancy in dates attributable to clerical/human error – No material to presume that cognizance was taken without submission of chargesheet – Order taking cognizance upheld [Paras 11–15].

Framing of Charge – Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – Legal Threshold – Court reiterated settled law that at stage of framing charge, detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible – Charge can be framed on strong suspicion or presumption of commission of offence – Recording of reasons mandatory only for discharge, not for framing of charge – Reliance placed on Ramesh Singh, Amit Kapoor, Dinesh Tiwari and Kanti Bhadra Shah [Paras 16–24].

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Ingredients of Section 107 IPC to be ultimately proved at trial – At charge stage, Court required only to see whether material raises presumption of abetment – Suicide note naming revisionist as responsible for death coupled with investigation material sufficient to raise prima facie suspicion – Detailed examination of intention, instigation or aid not warranted at this stage [Paras 25–27, 37–39].

Suicide Note – Disputed Authenticity – Limited Scrutiny at Charge Stage – Suicide note contained multiple paragraphs and signatures – Argument that note was fabricated or partly written at different times rejected at threshold – Absence of date on suicide note and conflicting handwriting expert reports held to be matters of evidence – Held: Validity, genuineness and evidentiary value of suicide note to be tested during trial and not at stage of framing charge [Paras 26–31].

Forensic Evidence – Conflicting Reports – No Conclusive Opinion at Pre-Trial Stage – FSL report indicated handwriting similarity but sought more specimen signatures for signature comparison – Private handwriting expert’s report contradicted prosecution case – Held: Contradictory expert opinions require appreciation of evidence at trial – Not a ground for quashing charge [Paras 28–31].

Judgments on Discharge Distinguished – Reliance on Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda, Suresh @ Pappu Kalani, Shashikant Sharma and Satish Mehra distinguished – Held: Those decisions dealt with discharge or different factual matrices – Present case concerns challenge to framing of charge, where presumption and grave suspicion suffice [Paras 32–38].

Witness Conduct and Earlier Statements – Matter for Trial – Delay or reluctance of widow in giving statement and her initial application absolving family members held irrelevant at charge stage – Such inconsistencies to be tested through cross-examination during trial [Paras 40].

Decision – Revision dismissed – Orders taking cognizance and framing charge upheld – Interim order vacated – Observations confined to pre-trial stage and not to influence trial on merits [Paras 41–43].

Arbitration – Interim Measures – Section 9 – Attachment Before Judgment – Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – Appellant sought interim protection by attaching 1600 MT of rice and security deposit of USD 296,326.74 for demurrage claims under a charterparty agreement – Learned Single Judge vacated the ex parte order for attachment and directed return of security deposit – On appeal, Division Bench found appellant had not established a strong prima facie case as demurrage was in nature of unadjudicated liquidated damages and no enforceable debt had crystallised – Mere right to sue cannot justify interim relief [Paras 44–51]

Balance of Convenience – Delay in Seeking Relief – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant delayed for 3 years before invoking arbitration and seeking attachment – Delay unexplained – Respondents deposited security promptly and were in ordinary business course – Balance of convenience found against appellant [Paras 52–56]

Asset Dissipation – Allegations Vague – No Evidence of Intent to Defeat Arbitral Award – Court held appellant failed to show specific acts of asset dissipation or imminent risk warranting attachment – Appellant's pleadings lacked material particulars – Interim relief rightly refused by Single Judge [Paras 30, 49, 57–58]

Arbitration Act – Section 37 – Limited Appellate Jurisdiction – Perversity or Arbitrariness Absent – Division Bench held that appellate interference under Section 37 warranted only if Single Judge’s order suffered from perversity, arbitrariness or violation of legal principles – None found – Appeal dismissed [Paras 31, 61–63]

Claim Nature – Demurrage – Not Adjudicated – Right to Damages Not Actionable – Court reaffirmed that until arbitral tribunal adjudicates liability, demurrage claim remains a mere right to sue for damages – Not an actionable debt to warrant pre-award security [Paras 47–50, 59]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Orders of learned Single Judge upheld – No costs – Pending applications closed.

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act – Rebuttal by Accused – Standard of Proof – Accused admitted signature on cheque but set up defence that cheque was part of multiple cheques issued for chit transaction to a third party – Defence supported by reply notices and contemporaneous documents – Held: Accused need only raise a probable defence and not prove it beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption successfully rebutted on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 12, 15–19].

Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Onus on Complainant – Complainant claimed cash loan of ₹5,00,000/- without documentary proof – Failure to disclose source of funds in statutory notice – Contradictory deposition regarding who sought the loan – Held: Once financial capacity is disputed, burden shifts back to complainant – Failure to prove capacity weakens prosecution case [Paras 7, 12, 19].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Transaction allegedly routed through intermediary (R. Venkateshappa) – Complainant admitted no difficulty in examining said person – Same counsel represented complainant and intermediary in connected proceedings – Held: Non-examination of crucial intermediary, despite defence specifically alleging misuse of cheque, is a material omission attracting adverse inference and probabilising defence [Paras 18–19].

Appreciation of Evidence – Perverse Findings – Courts below proceeded solely on admission of signature on cheque – Ignored contradictions in complainant’s testimony, reply notices and defence evidence – Held: Failure to consider entire material on record renders findings perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2016 and 17.04.2021 set aside – Petitioner/accused acquitted of offence under Section 138 NI Act – Bail and surety bonds discharged.

Maintainability – Writ Appeal by Statutory Committee – Quasi-judicial authority not “aggrieved” – Admission Supervisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of Act 15 of 2017 passed orders withholding and cancelling admission under OBC category – Single Judge set aside Committee’s orders and declared student eligible – Committee filed writ appeal – Held: Committee’s functions under Section 8 are adjudicatory with Civil Court-like powers under Section 8(3) – Beneficiaries/adversely affected persons are third parties and not the adjudicator – Adjudicating authority cannot challenge superior court’s interference with its quasi-judicial orders – allowing such appeals would undermine judicial discipline and create anomalous situation of adjudicators routinely appealing adverse decisions – Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1, 5, 9, 13, 17-18, 20].

Medical Education Admissions – Admission Supervisory Committee – Nature of powers – Section 8 Act 15 of 2017 – Committee’s role includes inquiry into complaints/suo motu action and recommendations including declaration of admissions invalid – powers of Civil Court while conducting inquiry – Held: such statutory scheme indicates adjudicatory and not ministerial character – Committee’s decisions under Section 8 operate as quasi-judicial orders [Paras 9, 13, 17].

Judicial Discipline – Adjudicating authority’s locus to litigate – Proper party vs aggrieved party – Committee was arrayed as respondent in writ petition challenging its orders – Held: mere impleadment does not create duty/right in adjudicator to defend its own decision through appeal – decision may be supported/challenged by persons benefited/adversely affected or by appropriate official respondents having duty to ensure fair admissions – Committee itself cannot be appellant against setting aside of its orders [Paras 18-19].

Statutory Appeal under Section 12 Act 15 of 2017 – Practical filing as writ petitions due to procedural vacuum – Court noted administrative history: nomenclature MFA(KME) introduced, but Division Bench earlier directed return of such appeals due to absence of rules on certified copy/court-fee etc – despite 2021 Rules, appeal procedure still not provided – hence writ petitions continue to be treated as maintainable against committee orders and are rostered to Single Bench under education subject codes – However, this does not confer appellate locus on Committee as adjudicator [Paras 14-16, 18].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Para 20].

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 17B – Payment of Wages During Pendency of Writ – Respondent workman terminated in 2002 – Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages – Writ petition filed by employer, stay granted in 2007 – Workman filed application under Section 17B in 2018, claiming unemployment – Employer failed to rebut affidavit denying gainful employment – Held: Workman entitled to last drawn or minimum wages from date of application (07.05.2018) till date of superannuation in 2023 [Paras 1-3, 10-11, 15-19]

Delay – Effect on 17B Relief – Delay of 12 years in filing 17B application explained as due to financial hardship – Court declined retrospective relief but allowed limited relief from date of application till superannuation – No bar on relief under 17B merely on account of delay where unemployment established and not rebutted [Paras 5, 10, 18-19]

Employer's Burden – Rebutting Affidavit of Unemployment – Once workman filed affidavit of unemployment, burden shifted to employer to prove gainful employment – Mere assertions insufficient – No proof adduced by employer – Held: Workman entitled to protection under Section 17B [Paras 12-14, 16]

Scope of Court’s Power under Section 17B – Court must grant interim relief where statutory conditions are satisfied – Merits of main case not relevant at interim stage – Minimum wages can be awarded in place of last drawn wages in appropriate cases [Paras 17-18]

Decision: Application under Section 17B allowed in part – Respondent entitled to last drawn or minimum wages (whichever is higher) from 07.05.2018 till deemed superannuation in 2023 – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Monthly payment to continue till 2023 as per direction – Writ petition to remain pending [Paras 19-21]

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Pre-2015 Claims – Petitioner sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds in 2013, 14 years before superannuation, and applied for compassionate appointment of his physically disabled son – Claim rejected in 2017 on grounds that 2015 scheme was inapplicable to cases before 05.08.2014 and that no medical incapacitation certificate was submitted – Held: Petitioner’s application dated 09.04.2014 fell within Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme and had to be considered under Circulars of 2005 and 2007 – Circular dated 24.09.2007 provided for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment for employees retiring before age 55 due to incapacitation – Bank erred in insisting on certification by medical board where scheme did not so require [Paras 4, 24–34, 36–37]

Ex Gratia Compensation – Eligibility under 2007 Circular – Employee voluntarily retired before 55 due to incapacitation and made timely application – Circular B(iii) of 24.09.2007 provides entitlement to ex gratia payment without need for medical board certification – Bank’s denial based on technicalities rejected – Petitioner's medical retirement accepted without objections, indicating implied recognition of incapacitation – Rejection of benefit arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 25–33]

Policy Interpretation – Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme – Applications pending as on 04.08.2014 or made before that date must be dealt with under earlier circulars – Bank’s failure to apply Clause 24 and denial of relief under 2007 Circular was unjustified – Bank directed to process ex gratia compensation within 12 weeks [Paras 26, 36–38]

Compassionate Appointment – Financial Hardship – Bank’s argument that petitioner was receiving pension and retiral benefits not relevant – Held: Financial need not sole determinant – Purpose of compassionate appointment includes broader social obligation – Case law in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar and Malaya Nanda Sethy applied [Paras 12–13, 35]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned communication dated 16.01.2017 set aside – Respondent Bank directed to consider petitioner’s application for appointment of son on compassionate grounds and grant ex gratia compensation under Clause B(iii) of Circular dated 24.09.2007 – Payment to be processed within 12 weeks [Para 38]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a housing redevelopment project – Petitioners, allegedly acting in concert, misrepresented ownership and control over two flats and induced complainant to invest Rs.1.91 crores – Despite MoUs and arbitral proceedings, FIR disclosed cognizable offences – Custodial interrogation held necessary in light of allegations of forged representations and financial misappropriation – Bail applications dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 7, 20-24]

Cheating – Misrepresentation of Ownership – Petitioners claimed to represent 11 flats before Arbitrator, though they owned only 9 – Two flats allegedly belonged to complainant, who was not party to arbitral proceedings – Petitioners knew complainant paid Rs.1.91 crores, but falsely recorded Rs. 40 lakhs – Allegations of deliberate misrepresentation found plausible at this stage [Paras 6, 15, 21]

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Economic Offences – Supreme Court rulings relied upon to highlight seriousness of economic offences – Held: Custodial interrogation of petitioners necessary to trace money trail and examine alleged conspiracy – Protection under anticipatory bail would obstruct further investigation [Paras 22-23]

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Petitioners argued dispute was civil and settlements were executed – Court held such documents do not negate FIR allegations at this stage – Matter involves serious allegations of inducement, fraud, and misuse of investor funds – Civil proceedings do not preclude parallel criminal liability [Paras 10-11, 21]

Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Custodial interrogation held necessary in view of serious economic offences and prima facie material suggesting conspiracy, misrepresentation, and financial misappropriation – Observations in judgment confined to bail issue only [Paras 24-26]

Labour Law – Gratuity – Limitation – Application filed after 2–3 years of retirement – Held: No limitation prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Rules cannot override statutory right – Rule 7(5) of the Central Rules clarifies that delayed claims are not invalid – Delay does not defeat the right to gratuity under a beneficial social welfare legislation [Paras 8–10].

Principal Employer – Liability for Gratuity – Contractual Employment – Petitioners argued workers were contractor’s employees – Court held contracts were a camouflage as workers served continuously for over 20 years despite changing contractors – Principal employer liable to pay gratuity under Section 21(4) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Right to recover from contractors preserved [Paras 13–16].

Wages – Definition – Gratuity Included – As per Section 2(vi)(d) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, gratuity payable on termination of employment is part of "wages" – Hence, principal employer’s statutory obligation includes gratuity as wage component under applicable labour laws [Paras 17–18].

Interest on Delayed Gratuity – Held: Under Section 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employer is liable to pay interest from date gratuity becomes payable (i.e., from date of retirement), not from date of application – Interest rightly awarded from date of superannuation till payment [Paras 21–22].

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Gratuity as Property – Gratuity is a vested right and recognized as property under Article 300A of the Constitution – Cannot be denied except by authority of law – Delay or contractual arrangement cannot justify withholding payment [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Orders of Controlling and Appellate Authorities upheld – Respondents entitled to withdraw deposited gratuity amounts and recover any deficit – Principal employer liable to pay and may recover from contractors where applicable.

Civil Writ - Fair Price Shop – Misappropriation of Food Grains – Scope of Revision under Clause 24 – Respondent No.5 was found guilty by District Supply Officer (DSO) of misappropriating wheat (22.6 quintals), rice (11.36 quintals), and pulses, and violating other regulatory requirements – DSO passed order cancelling authorization and forfeiting security deposit – Revision before Deputy Commissioner dismissed, confirming findings of irregularity – Second revision allowed by Hon’ble Minister without recording finding on legality or propriety – Held: Minister exceeded revisional jurisdiction under Clause 24(1) by setting aside findings without examining their correctness – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 3–5, 13–16]

Consumer Rights – Locus of Complainants – Preliminary objection raised that original complainants (ration cardholders) have no locus to challenge Minister’s order – Rejected – Held: Under Distribution Order, 1975, complainants have standing to challenge revisional orders unlike under Licensing Order, 1979 – Judgment in Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre followed – Supreme Court ruling in Vishvas not applicable as it related to Licensing Order [Paras 6–10]

Revisional Powers – Jurisdictional Error – Hon’ble Minister ordered fresh enquiry and reinstatement of authorization based on general statements from cardholders and respondent’s long-standing service – Held: Revisional authority must record findings on legality, propriety, or irregularity of prior orders – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable and beyond jurisdiction [Paras 14–16]

Subsequent Events – Fresh Enquiry – Respondent No.5 relied on post-order enquiry showing no current complaints – Held: Subsequent developments irrelevant where earlier findings of misappropriation were unaddressed by revisional authority – Fresh material not part of record and cannot justify flawed revisional order [Para 12]

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Order dated 19/07/2021 passed by Hon’ble Minister quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to Hon’ble Minister to decide revision afresh after recording findings on allegations of misappropriation – Respondent No.5 to continue operating fair price shop unless otherwise barred – Revision to be decided preferably before 31/05/2026 [Para 17]