Contract Law – Government Contract – Delay in Performance – Extra Expenditure – Shared Responsibility – Plaintiff contracted for construction of MVIP Kuravilangad distributory; work delayed from agreed completion date of 07.10.2008 to actual completion on 31.07.2009 due to public agitation against blasting of rocks, Panchayat stop memo, police interference, and interim injunctions in OS 187/2008 and OS 231/2008 – Held: While plaintiff could not be wholly absolved of responsibility for delay, he could not be held solely responsible; defendants also failed to take any steps to ensure smooth execution of the work – On totality of facts, plaintiff entitled to one-half of extra expenditure assessed [Paras 8-9, 13].

Expert Report – Erroneous Calculation – Addition of Tender Excess to Market Rate – Expert assessed extra expenditure at market rates prevailing during 2008-09 but erroneously added 40% tender excess thereon; since the market rate already reflected the current period cost, addition of tender excess was impermissible – Decree of trial court based on such flawed calculation liable to modification [Para 10].

Supplemental Agreements – Execution Under Compulsion – Not Binding – Defendants relied on supplemental agreements wherein plaintiff undertook to carry out extended work at original contract rate – Trial court found that refusal to execute supplemental agreements would have resulted in termination of contract – Held: Agreements executed under compelling circumstances and threat of termination cannot be enforced to negate legitimate claims for additional expenditure incurred during extended period [Para 11].

Precedent Distinguished – General Manager, Northern Railway v. Sarvesh Chopra – Relied upon by defendants to contend contractor precluded from claiming enhanced rates after undertaking not to do so – Held: On facts of present case, pinning plaintiff to original 2004 schedule of rates for work completed during 2008-09 would be harsh and inequitable; judgment not applicable [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Decree of trial court set aside and modified – Plaintiff entitled to realise ₹24,53,677/- (comprising ₹20,09,108/- being one-half of extra expenditure and ₹4,44,569/- retained amount) with interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realisation – Plaintiff also entitled to proportionate costs throughout.

Criminal Law - Interim Maintenance - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 12 - Professional qualification of spouse - Petitioner-husband challenged the order of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, which modified the SDJM's order - Trial Court had granted Rs. 8,000/- per month to the son but refused maintenance to the wife on the ground that she was a practicing lawyer and Managing Director of a marriage bureau - Appellate Court modified this to award Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife and maintained the son's award from the date of application - High Court referred to the principles in Rajnesh v. Neha holding that professional qualification is not a straitjacket bar to maintenance - Court noted that the objective is to ensure the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution - Court found the wife's maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- justified but reduced the son's maintenance from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- as the husband was already bearing education expenses - Held - Appellate order modified - son's maintenance reduced to Rs. 5,000/- - wife's maintenance affirmed at Rs. 5,000/- - both payable from the date of application - [Paras 1-11].

Evidence Law - Assessment of Income - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 12 - Proof of independent source of income - Husband produced partnership firm and registration certificates to show wife was Managing Director of Celestial Marriage Bureau and a practicing lawyer since 2020 - Appellate Court held that the plea of wife having no adequate means was mechanically negated by the Trial Court - High Court held that while subjectivity is inescapable in quantifying compensation - the focus remains on maintaining the standard of living of the matrimonial home - Held - Professional status does not automatically disentitle a spouse to interim support - [Paras 6-9].

Procedural Law - Maintainability - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Section 29 - Revision vs Appeal - Revisions preferred under Sections 397/401 CrPC against orders passed in appeal under the DV Act - Held - The question of maintainability of Criminal Revisions under Section 29 of the DV Act is left open - parties directed to cooperate for final disposal of the main petition - [Para 10].

Decision: Criminal Revisions disposed of – Maintenance for the son modified from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month – Maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month for the wife upheld – Payments effective from 23.02.2023.

Service Law - Locus Standi – Third Party Appeal – Service Matter – Appellant, a co-employee, filed special appeal challenging Single Judge's order setting aside dismissal of writ petitioner/respondent – Both appellant and writ petitioner employed as Head Assistants in King George's Medical University, Lucknow – Appellant at serial no.118 in seniority list while writ petitioner at serial no.73 – Appellant not party to original writ proceedings – Appellant claimed appointment of writ petitioner was against statutory rules and affected his seniority and promotion chances – Held: Appellant lacks locus standi – Dispute between employer and employee is private dispute – No direct adverse impact or legal injury demonstrated by appellant – Vast difference in seniority positions negates any impact on appellant's promotion or seniority – Mere chance or potential future impact insufficient to confer right to inter-meddle – Appellant was complainant/informant but such role does not confer right to file appeal confined to aggrieved persons [Paras 28-55].

Aggrieved Person – Definition and Scope – Person aggrieved must have legal rights adversely affected or have suffered legal wrong – Legal right means entitlement arising from legal rules – Expression "aggrieved person" denotes elastic concept but cannot include person suffering psychological or imaginary injury – Right or interest must be adversely affected or jeopardized – Proximity of injury and impact of order must be examined – Legal injury complained must be real with nexus and proximity in time to issue at hand – Service jurisprudence may permit employees to challenge orders affecting entire cadre's seniority or promotion, but concept cannot be stretched to permit any employee to challenge order passed against specific employee directly impacted by such order – Appeal maintainable only when: (1) appealing party was party to original proceedings, (2) definitive conclusive ruling on rights of parties in dispute is subject of appeal, (3) party is person aggrieved adversely affected by determination [Paras 30-50].

Public Interest Litigation – Service Matters – PIL not maintainable in service matters except by writ of quo warranto – Dispute between employer and employee is private dispute kept out of PIL ambit – Concept of locus standi construed strictly in writ petitions to prevent misuse by intermeddlers – Locus standi diluted only in PIL for laudable causes relating to underprivileged sections who may be deprived of access to justice – Courts must maintain strict vigilance against abuse of process by meddlesome bystanders [Paras 34-40].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction – Writs issued in favour of person whose fundamental or legal rights violated by State – Existence of legal right is condition precedent for invoking writ jurisdiction – Legal right to be enforced must ordinarily be right of petitioner who complains of infraction and approaches court for relief – Court enforces performance of statutory duty by public body at behest of person having legal right to insist on such performance [Paras 32-36].

Condonation of Delay – Application for condonation of delay allowed – Delay of 63 days condoned – Delay explained on ground that employer institution should have filed appeal but failed to take proactive step during limitation period – Delay held unintentional and bonafide – Issue of delay separate from issue of locus standi [Paras 3-8].

Decision: Application seeking condonation of delay allowed – Application seeking leave to appeal dismissed – Special appeal held not maintainable at behest of appellant Niraj Kumar Singh for lack of locus standi – Court clarified it expressed no opinion on validity of appointment of writ petitioner/respondent – If employer chooses to challenge, present order will not come in its way – No order as to costs

UAPA – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Overground Worker – Logistical Support – Long Incarceration – Appellant alleged to be a courier, messenger and overground worker of CPI (Maoist) who collected levy of Rs. 5 lakhs from a contractor on the direction of Maoist commander Ravindra Ganjhu – Cash, a letter of demand and other incriminating articles recovered from his possession – Charge sheet filed against six accused; out of 160 witnesses only five examined so far – Appellant in custody since 05.01.2020, completing over six years of incarceration – Held: Rigours of Section 43D(5) UAPA yield where there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in the near future and incarceration has already exceeded a substantial period; appellant entitled to bail [Paras 6, 12, 13].

UAPA – Bail – Parity – Distinguishable Role of Co-accused – NIA opposed bail citing rejection of bail of co-accused Kunwar Ganjhu in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 944 of 2025 – Held: Role of Kunwar Ganjhu under para 17.50.3 of the charge sheet is distinguishable as he was directly involved in extortion from contractors by putting them in fear of bodily injury and was a habitual offender, whereas the present appellant's role under para 17.50.2 is confined to that of a courier and messenger providing logistical support – Parity not applicable [Paras 10, 11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – UAPA – Statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA do not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution – Rigours of Section 43D(5) melt down where trial completion within reasonable time is unlikely and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence – Held: Section 43D(5) UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 NDPS Act and does not impose a precondition of prima facie innocence [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 01.12.2025 rejecting bail set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each – Condition imposed that appellant shall remain physically present before the trial court on each and every date till conclusion of trial.

Arbitration – National Highways Act – Applicability of Section 29A of Arbitration Act – Statutory arbitration under Section 3G(5) – Whether time limit for making award applies – Held Section 29A inapplicable as NH Act is special self-contained code – Provisions relating to extension, substitution and termination of mandate inconsistent with scheme of NH Act – Application would render statutory mechanism unworkable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31–35, 38–40, 48–49]

Arbitration – Legislation by reference – Applicability of subsequent amendments – Arbitration Act applied to NH Act only to extent not inconsistent – Test of intention and unworkability applied – Section 29A excluded due to conflict with statutory scheme [Paras 32–34]

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 3G(5), NH Act – Exclusive power of Central Government – Court cannot substitute arbitrator under Section 29A(6) – Special law overrides general law – Inconsistency leads to exclusion of Section 29A [Paras 38–41, 44–45]

Arbitration – Delay in making award – Award passed after about six years – Whether void – Held delay does not render award without jurisdiction in statutory arbitration under NH Act – Remedy lies under Article 226 in case of unreasonable delay [Paras 49–50]

Land Acquisition – Determination of compensation – Section 26, RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Arbitrator relied on multiple comparable sale instances – Higher value transactions considered – Uniform rate justified based on location and potential – No patent illegality [Paras 52–57, 65–69, 71]

Land Acquisition – Rejection of sale instances by Competent Authority – Majority of sale deeds discarded without reasons – Arbitrator entitled to reassess evidence – Approach consistent with law laid down by Supreme Court [Paras 54–56]

Arbitration – Scope under Sections 34 and 37 – Limited interference – No re-appreciation of evidence – Interference only in case of patent illegality or perversity – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 60–63, 74–75]

Land Acquisition – Multiplication factor – Classification as rural land – Application of factor of 2 upheld based on notification and findings of fact – No error found [Para 72]

Decision: All Arbitration Appeals dismissed – Section 29A held inapplicable to arbitrations under National Highways Act – Arbitral awards upheld – No interference warranted under Section 37.

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Summons for Investigation – Challenge on Ground of Malafide – Not Established – Petitioner challenged summons issued by the Income Tax Officer (Investigation) on 14.11.2025 requiring production of books of account, bank statements and property details, alleging it was issued at the instance of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax who is remotely related to defendants in a pending civil suit – Held: None of the respondents are parties to the civil suit; petitioner himself is not a party; the Tax Evasion Petition was received on 12.11.2025 and summons issued following Standard Operating Procedure; interim injunction in the civil suit was passed in April 2025, months before the summons; plea of malafide raised only in the writ petition and not in replies before the income tax authorities; plea based on Chartered Accountant's affidavit which was introduced after the summons and is afterthought – Malafide in fact not proved [Paras 24, 34].

Income Tax – Malice in Law – Legal Malafide – Distinction – Malafide in fact requires direct proof of ill will or improper motive; malice in law is an act done without lawful excuse or for purposes foreign to those for which power is vested – Where the statutory authority has acted on an anonymous Tax Evasion Petition following the prescribed SOP, allotting Unique Identification Number and obtaining approval of the competent authority before issuing summons, there is no question of malice in law or colourable exercise of power – Burden of establishing malafide is very heavy on the person who alleges it [Paras 26-35].

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (Investigation) – Not Raised in Writ Petition – Reading Section 131(1A) with Section 132(1), the Income Tax Officer is included as an authorized officer to issue summons on being authorized by the competent superior authority – Additionally, the ground of want of jurisdiction was never raised in the writ petition or in the petitioner's replies before the income tax authorities and was raised orally for the first time at arguments, which is impermissible – Held: No jurisdictional infirmity made out [Paras 40-42].

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Stage of Investigation – Confidentiality – At the stage of summons under Section 131(1A), the income tax authority is not required to disclose the reasons, source of information, line of inquiry or scope of ongoing investigation; details of such investigation are confidential and even exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act – Disclosure would defeat the purpose of investigation [Para 6].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Summons under Section 131(1A) held legal and not suffering from any infirmity – IA No. 4 of 2026 rejected – IA No. 3 of 2026 and all pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Certified Guardian – Time Limit for Application – Rule 5 – Petitioner, a specially-abled spinster, sought compassionate appointment as certified guardian of the minor child of her deceased brother (a Government employee) and his wife, both of whom died in a road accident on 04.07.2017 – The Compassionate Appointment Rules did not originally contemplate appointment to a certified guardian; the eligibility was created only by amendment on 09.04.2021 – Petitioner filed her application on 18.08.2022, five years after the date of death – Held: Petitioner's application is beyond the one-year time limit prescribed under the amended Rule 5; the exception under Rule 5 for minors is also inapplicable; compassionate appointment cannot be granted [Paras 11-15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Applicable Rules – Date of Death vs. Date of Consideration – Conflict Between N.C. Santosh and Bheemesh – In N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, the Apex Court held that the norms prevailing as on the date of consideration of the application are the decisive factor – However, in State of Karnataka v. Bheemesh, the Apex Court opined that where benefits under an existing scheme were enlarged by a modified scheme after the death of the employee, only the scheme in force on the date of death applies – Held: Compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment; interpretation must depend on determinate and fixed criteria; greater emphasis on rule of law required; indeterminate factors such as the petitioner being a specially-abled spinster cannot override the prescribed time limit [Paras 14, 15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Amended Rule 3(2)(iii) – Benefit Not Available Beyond Time Limit – Even though the 2021 amendment created eligibility for certified guardians of minor children of deceased government employees where both the employee and spouse are deceased, such eligibility is subject to the simultaneous amendment to Rule 5 prescribing a one-year time limit for filing applications – Petitioner's application filed after five years cannot be considered regardless of the genuineness of the claim [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Decision: Writ petition rejected – Tribunal's order and respondent's refusal of compassionate appointment upheld.

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Section 325 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Appellant, a neighbour, objected to construction work on the complainant's property and struck the victim (daughter-in-law of the complainant) on the head with a sabal (iron rod), causing grievous bleeding injuries resulting in loss of consciousness – Prosecution examined seven witnesses including PW1 (de facto complainant), PW3 (independent eyewitness), PW5 (victim/injured), PW6 (treating doctor) and PW7 (Investigating Officer) – Medical evidence (Exhibit-3) confirmed grievous nature of the lacerated head injury consistent with a blunt pointed instrument – Held: Prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed [Paras 18-37].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Independent Corroboration – PW5, as the injured victim, carries significant evidentiary value and her testimony was corroborated by PW1 and PW3 (independent neighbour) – Cross-examination failed to shake the credibility of any of the three witnesses – Minor discrepancy regarding precise place of occurrence (pathway adjacent to the house) held not to constitute a material contradiction – Non-examination of Sisir Mistry (cited charge-sheeted witness) explained by the Trial Court as having been gained over by the accused – Held: Evidence of PW1, PW3, PW5 consistent, mutually corroborative and reliable [Paras 23-34].

Sentencing – Undue Delay – Leniency – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Incident occurred in 2008; appeal pending since 2010; appellant on bail continuously for over fifteen years with no subsequent criminal conduct – Held: Protracted delay in disposal of criminal proceedings, not attributable to the accused, amounts to a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 – Prolonged pendency itself constitutes mental suffering and operates as a form of punishment – Substantive sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 10,000/- [Paras 39-50].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 325 IPC affirmed – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-, payable within three months; default imprisonment of two months – Bail bond cancelled.

Criminal Law – Murder – Sections 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 and 506 IPC – Brutal daylight incident – Accused persons, armed with gun, knife and sharp-edged weapon (Daav), attacked deceased Chameli Devi due to land dispute – Deceased was knocked down, assaulted, beheaded and her head hung on a tree – Child witness also sustained firearm injury – Eyewitness account of PW-1 (informant), PW-2 and injured PW-8 found consistent on material particulars – Medical evidence establishing decapitation and abdominal injuries – Forensic evidence confirming presence of human blood on seized articles – Conduct of accused Lakhmi at spot (dancing near corpse with weapon) further corroborates prosecution version – Held: Chain of evidence complete and prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 77–80]

Evidence – Child Witness – Competency and Reliability – Section 118 Evidence Act – PW-8 Krishna Kumar, injured eyewitness aged about 7 years at time of incident – Trial Court conducted preliminary examination to test understanding and capacity – Witness gave coherent, consistent account of assault, firing and beheading – Withstood lengthy cross-examination without material contradictions – No evidence of tutoring or embellishment – Presence at spot proved by injury and medical evidence showing firearm wound with blackening – Held: Testimony of injured child witness highly reliable, carries great evidentiary value and can independently sustain conviction without necessity of corroboration [Paras 61–72]

Evidence – Minor contradictions and inconsistencies – Appreciation – Alleged inconsistencies in testimony of PW-8 regarding presence of villagers and sequence after firearm injury – Explained in light of natural human conduct and surrounding circumstances – Witness fleeing after injury does not negate his presence or ability to witness occurrence – Distinction reiterated between normal discrepancies due to shock, trauma and lapse of time and material contradictions affecting core prosecution case – Held: Discrepancies trivial and do not dent credibility of prosecution [Paras 43–52]

Evidence – Injured witness – Evidentiary value – PW-8 being injured witness lends assurance to prosecution case – His presence at scene cannot be doubted – Medical evidence corroborates ocular testimony – Held: Testimony of injured witness entitled to great weight and reliability [Paras 51, 72]

Doctrine of Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus – Applicability – Argument that entire testimony must be discarded if part found unreliable – Rejected – Held: Doctrine not applicable in Indian criminal law – It is only a rule of caution – Court entitled to separate grain from chaff and rely upon trustworthy portion of evidence [Paras 53–56]

Defence Evidence – Alibi – Evaluation of defence witness – DW-5 projected as chance witness claiming no one present at spot at 4:00 PM – Statement inconsistent with prompt FIR (lodged at 04:30 PM mentioning incident at 03:15 PM) and with testimony of PW-7 who reached spot at 03:45 PM and apprehended accused – Failure to explain timeline discrepancy – Held: Defence version unreliable and rightly discarded; plea of alibi not established [Paras 57–60]

Criminal Trial – Non-examination of witness – Non-examination of Komal – Occurrence near his house – Held: Not fatal to prosecution – Evidence of eyewitnesses cogent and reliable – Moreover, witness was inimical to informant; defence could have examined him – No adverse inference warranted [Para 74]

Evidence – Recovery of weapons and forensic corroboration – Recovery of Daav and trident from appellant Lakhmi at spot – Knife and gun recovered on pointing out of co-accused – FSL report confirms bloodstains and presence of human blood – Medical evidence corroborates firearm injury – Non-recovery of empty cartridge not fatal in light of other clinching evidence – Held: Scientific and physical evidence fully supports prosecution case [Paras 75–76]

Criminal Law – Common intention – Section 34 IPC – Accused jointly lying in wait, armed with different weapons, surrounding and attacking deceased, and acting in coordinated manner – Role of each accused clearly established – Held: Common intention proved beyond doubt [Paras 1, 72, 77]

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 IPC upheld – Conviction of Languri and Yogesh under Section 506 IPC also upheld – Appellants to remain in jail to serve out sentence awarded by Trial Court.