Service Law – Family Pension – Claim by Second Wife – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Monogamy as Mandatory Norm – Marriage contracted during subsistence of first marriage void ab initio – Second wife not entitled to family pension [Paras 1, 3.1].

Hindu Law – Bigamy – Void Marriage – Sections 11 and 17, Hindu Marriage Act – Second marriage during lifetime of first spouse illegal and punishable – Such void marriage does not create marital status for pensionary or service benefits [Paras 3.1, 3.5].

Pension Rules – Interpretation – Expression “wife / wives” – Cannot be construed to permit polygamy – Pension rules cannot override or defeat statutory mandate of Hindu Marriage Act and IPC – Widow status presupposes valid marriage [Para 3.3].

Family Pension – Sine Qua Non – Valid Marriage – To qualify as ‘widow’ under pension rules, existence of legally valid marriage essential – Void marriage confers no enforceable rights – Grant of pension to second wife would amount to placing premium on illegality [Paras 3.3, 3.4].

Void Marriage – Effect of Subsequent Events – Death of First Wife – Void marriage does not become valid by subsequent demise of first spouse – Maxim “ex nihilo nihil fit” applies – What is void ab initio remains void [Para 3.5].

Precedents – Applicability – Smt. Sriramabai v. Record Officer – Distinguished – Case relating to presumption of marriage after prolonged cohabitation post death of first wife – Not applicable where marriage itself was contracted during subsistence of first marriage [Para 3.4].

Judicial Discipline – Case Law – Precedent applies only to facts decided – Reliance placed on Quinn v. Letham – Case is authority only for what it decides and not for logical extensions [Para 3.4].

Family Pension – Second Wife – Settled Position of Law – Issue no longer res integra – Supreme Court in Raj Kumari v. Krishna held second wife not entitled to family pension – Karnataka High Court reiterated that recognising such claims encourages illegality [Para 3.5].

Decision – Writ Appeal Dismissed – Order of Single Judge Affirmed – Rejection of claim for family pension upheld – Appeal found devoid of merits [Final Para].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC maintainable only on discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record or analogous grounds – Review not an appeal in disguise – Re-appreciation of facts or re-argument on merits impermissible – Settled principles reiterated [Paras 5–6].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Limitation – COVID-19 Extension Orders – Plea Raised for First Time in Review – Ex-parte decree dated 11.02.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed on 27.01.2022 – Benefit of Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation during COVID-19 not pleaded before Trial Court or in appeal – Ground raised for first time in review – Held: Not an error apparent on face of record – Review cannot be used to introduce new grounds not urged earlier [Paras 7–7.4].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Knowledge of Proceedings – False Plea of Lack of Notice – Record showed repeated appearances of police officials even after suit transferred to District Court – Notices issued and appearances recorded post ex-parte order – Petitioners also served with caveat after decree – Plea that knowledge arose only on receipt of execution notice found false – Findings based on admitted and undisputed material – No error apparent [Paras 8–8.6].

Governmental Delay – Public Authorities – Liberal Approach – Not Automatically Applicable – Plea of institutional delay and systemic lapses not raised in appeal – No case of breakdown of communication or administrative delay pleaded earlier – Mere claim of impression that no further steps were required after filing written statement rejected – Reliance on Sheo Raj Singh (2023) SCC misplaced – No ground for review [Paras 9–9.1].

Review vs Appeal – Finality of Judgments – Review cannot be invoked to fill lacunae, improve pleadings or raise entirely new arguments – Findings in impugned appellate judgment based on pleadings and record suffer from no infirmity – No patent error demonstrated [Paras 6.1–6.3, 10].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Judgment dated 28.11.2025 dismissing FAO No. 53/2023 upheld – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Seniority – Foresters – Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme – Petitioners originally appointed as Village Forest Workers (VFWs) and later redesignated and merged into Forester cadre w.e.f. 10.02.2009 under 2009 Amendment Rules – Private opposite parties appointed as Foresters under Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and sent for Foresters’ training from 16.06.2008 – Seniority lists prepared by counting training period of RA appointees – Held: Appointment under RA Rules precedes training and is not contingent upon completion of training – Date of joining training constitutes entry into service [Paras 9.6–9.17, 10].

Rehabilitation Assistance – Nature of appointment – RA Rules are a welfare and compassionate measure intended to provide immediate succour to family of deceased Government servant – Appointment under RA Rules is an exception to normal recruitment – Such appointees hold substantive posts subject to training and probation – Held: Training is not sine qua non for appointment as Forester under RA Rules [Paras 9.1–9.9].

Seniority – Rule 13 of RA Rules – Interpretation – Rule 13 mandates that persons appointed under RA Rules shall be placed below persons recruited and appointed in the same year – Private opposite parties treated as appointed in 2008 on joining training – Petitioners merged into cadre only in 2009 – Held: Petitioners cannot claim seniority over RA appointees of earlier year [Paras 8.1–8.2, 10.17].

Training Period – Whether counts for seniority – Evidence showed RA appointees were relieved from divisions, joined training school, and were paid salary and allowances during training – Appointment already made before training – No rule excluding training period from service – Held: Training period rightly counted for seniority [Paras 7.3, 9.14–9.17].

Executive Instructions – Supersession – Effect – Government Letter dated 13.04.2017 fixing seniority from date of joining training later superseded, but subsequently reaffirmed by Letter dated 27.05.2019 in conformity with Rule 13 of RA Rules – Actions taken bona fide on basis of extant instructions and promotions already granted – Held: No ground to unsettle settled seniority [Paras 10.1–10.14].

Delay and laches – Challenge to seniority list – Seniority list dated 08.11.2016 not challenged within reasonable time – Belated challenge after publication of revised list impermissible – Settled seniority should not be reopened after lapse of time – Held: Petitioners disentitled to relief on ground of delay [Paras 10.3–10.8, 12.2].

Judicial Review – Limits – Court will not interfere with fixation of seniority unless contrary to statutory rules or vitiated by arbitrariness – Seniority fixed in consonance with RA Rules having overriding effect under Rule 15 – Held: No illegality or arbitrariness established [Paras 10.16–10.18, 12].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Fixation of seniority of Foresters appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme upheld – Seniority lists dated 08.11.2016 and 24.06.2017 sustained – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Look Out Circular – Nature and Scope – Coercive Measure – LOC is a coercive measure intended to secure presence of an accused who is deliberately evading arrest or judicial process and where there is likelihood of fleeing the country – Mere pendency of investigation or seriousness of allegations is not sufficient to justify continuation of LOC [Paras 44–45].

Criminal Investigation – Cooperation by Accused – Effect on LOC – Petitioners had consistently joined investigation, complied with summons, furnished documents, and cooperated in search and seizure proceedings – No material to show evasion of process of law or non-cooperation – Held: Continuation of LOC unjustified [Paras 43, 46].

Non-Bailable Warrants – Absence – Relevance – No NBWs or coercive processes issued by any Court against Petitioners – Absence of NBWs is a significant factor against issuance or continuation of LOC – LOC cannot be sustained when statutory preconditions are absent [Paras 47, 49].

Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Reasonable Restrictions – Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 – Restrictions must satisfy test of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality – In absence of flight risk or evasion, indefinite restraint on travel violates constitutional safeguards [Paras 19, 38, 49].

Economic Offences – Public Interest – Balancing Test – Allegations relate to period 2007–2014 and investigation ongoing for several years – Petitioners’ professional expertise crucial for national interest in fertilizer procurement – Public interest does not warrant mechanical curtailment of liberty when investigation is not prejudiced [Paras 12–16, 23–24, 48].

Precedent – Sumer Singh Salkan Case – Principles governing LOC reiterated – LOC permissible only where accused is absconding, evading arrest or trial, or likely to flee – None of the conditions satisfied in present case – LOC liable to be quashed [Paras 44–46, 49].

Safeguards Imposed by Court – While quashing LOC, Court directed Petitioners to keep Trial Court informed of residence and contact details – Prior intimation to be given for foreign travel along with itinerary and place of stay – Balance struck between liberty and investigation [Para 50].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Look Out Circulars quashed – Petitioners permitted to travel subject to conditions imposed – Pending applications disposed of.

Anticipatory Bail – Corruption and Economic Offences – Public Servants – Stringent Scrutiny – Petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR registered under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act alleging forged work orders, manipulated estimates and illegal release of payments – Petitioners were public servants posted in Municipal Corporation Accounts Branch – Allegations disclose abuse of official position, criminal conspiracy and wrongful loss to public exchequer of more than ₹12 crores – Held: Anticipatory bail in corruption cases can be granted only in exceptional circumstances – No prima facie case of false implication or frivolous prosecution made out [Paras 6–7].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Economic Offences – Petitioners contended that case rests solely on documentary evidence and custodial interrogation is unnecessary – Held: In cases involving forgery of official records, manipulation of electronic data, audit processes and multi-layered conspiracy, custodial interrogation is often indispensable to ascertain knowledge, intent, trace money trail and identify other beneficiaries – Grant of pre-arrest bail likely to hamper effective investigation [Paras 7–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Abuse of Official Position – Societal Impact – Corruption by public servants held to be an offence not merely against an individual but against society at large – Economic offences erode public confidence in public administration – Courts required to exercise greater caution while considering anticipatory bail in such matters [Paras 7–8].

Multiple FIRs – Same Transaction – Plea Not Decidable at Bail Stage – Petitioners argued that multiple FIRs on same set of work orders amounted to abuse of process – Prosecution asserted that each FIR pertained to distinct forged work orders unearthed at different stages of investigation – Held: Whether FIRs arise out of same transaction or constitute distinct offences is a mixed question of law and fact to be examined at trial – Plea cannot be conclusively adjudicated at anticipatory bail stage [Para 8].

Parity in Bail – Earlier Anticipatory Bail Orders – No Automatic Right – Reliance placed on grant of anticipatory bail in earlier FIRs on similar allegations – Held: Each bail application must be decided on its own facts and circumstances – Grant of bail in other FIRs does not ipso facto entitle accused to anticipatory bail in subsequent FIR involving expanding conspiracy [Para 8].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Court reiterated need to balance personal liberty with societal interest in fair and effective investigation – Over-solicitous approach towards liberty in corruption cases may defeat public justice – At this stage, material on record discloses reasonable grounds for accusations – Anticipatory bail declined [Paras 8–9].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail refused – Observations confined only to bail consideration and not to influence merits of investigation or trial – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Offences under Sections 504, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PoA) Act – Appellants convicted by Special Court for assault and grievous hurt allegedly caused to complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste – On appeal, High Court finds material inconsistencies in testimonies of PW1 to PW3 who are interested witnesses – Independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support prosecution case – Medical evidence did not corroborate ocular version – X-ray reports not produced and no radiologist or specialist examined to prove grievous injury – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 12–31].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Section 3(2)(v) – Applicability – Requirement that offence must be committed solely on the ground that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – Evidence on record showing pre-existing dispute relating to aquaculture between parties – Held: Mere proof that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste is insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish that offence was committed on account of caste identity – Charge under Section 3(2)(v) not made out [Paras 26–27].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Reliability – Evidence of complainant and her parents suffering from inconsistencies regarding role of accused and manner of assault – Independent eyewitnesses not supporting prosecution – Absence of corroboration – Held: Unsafe to base conviction solely on such evidence [Paras 20, 27].

Medical Evidence – Grievous Hurt – Proof – Doctor deposed fracture based on X-ray but X-ray plates and reports not produced – Neither radiologist nor orthopedic/ENT specialist examined – No external injuries noted by doctors – Held: Prosecution failed to prove grievous hurt within meaning of Section 320 IPC – Offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC not attracted [Paras 29–30].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Incident alleged at 8.30 p.m. – Complaint lodged at about 12.30 a.m. – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Adds to doubt regarding prosecution version when evidence otherwise weak [Paras 8–9, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.10.2014 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled – Fine, if any, to be refunded [Order clauses i–vi].

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference under Section 378 Cr.P.C. – Principles reiterated – Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – Appellate court can interfere only when trial court’s view is perverse or based on misreading of evidence – If two views are possible, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Illegal Gratification – Demand and Acceptance – Essential Ingredients – Mere recovery of tainted money and positive phenolphthalein test not sufficient – Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 20 PC Act arises only after proof of foundational facts [Paras 15, 16].

Official Favour – Pendency of Work – Failure to Prove – Evidence showed that mutation entries were already made prior to trap – No clear proof that any official work was pending with the accused on the date of complaint or trap – Delay attributable to non-compliance by complainant – Held: Pendency of official work not established [Paras 14, 15].

Trap Proceedings – Reliability of Evidence – Voice Recorder Evidence – Non-compliance with legal requirements – Specimen voice of accused not taken nor subjected to voice spectrographic analysis – Recorded conversation not reliable in evidence – Cannot be used to prove demand [Para 16(3)].

Confessional Statement – Inadmissibility – Explanation obtained from accused after trap and arrest – Statement inculpatory in nature – Hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act – Cannot be relied upon by prosecution [Para 16(4)].

Witness Testimony – Credibility – Contradictions and Inconsistencies – Evidence of complainant and related witnesses inconsistent regarding dates, demand, and pendency of work – Absence of independent corroboration – Trial court justified in disbelieving prosecution witnesses [Paras 15, 16].

Decision – State Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 31.05.2014 upheld – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s appreciation of evidence – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 9, 10].

Quashing of Proceedings – Scope under Section 528 B.N.S.S. – At the stage of quashing, Court is required to see whether allegations in FIR and material collected disclose prima facie commission of offence – Detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudication of disputed facts impermissible – Where allegations disclose ingredients of offences, proceedings cannot be quashed [Paras 11–12, 22].

Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means – Section 69 B.N.S. – Section 69 is a new penal provision criminalising sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means, including false promise of marriage – Distinction between breach of promise and false promise made without intention to marry reiterated – Prima facie allegations that accused was already married and induced victim into sexual relationship on promise of marriage sufficient to attract Section 69 B.N.S. [Paras 15–17, 21–22].

False Promise of Marriage – Married Accused – Where accused was admittedly already married at the inception of relationship, promise of marriage made to victim prima facie constitutes deceitful means – Question whether victim was aware of accused’s marital status is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated at quashing stage [Paras 17, 22].

Consensual Relationship – Long Duration – Effect – Long-standing relationship by itself does not negate allegation of deceit or false promise of marriage – Consent allegedly obtained on misconception of fact arising from promise of marriage cannot be conclusively termed consensual at threshold stage [Paras 12, 21–22].

Contradictory Defences – Marriage Certificate and False Promise – Plea that victim claims both false promise of marriage and existence of marriage raises disputed questions of fact – Such contradictions require evidence and cross-examination and cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S. [Paras 18–19, 22].

Role of Accused as Teacher – Position of Trust – Allegations that accused was a teacher and victim was his student bring the case within the broader framework of abuse of position of trust – Relevant while examining culpability under B.N.S. provisions – Reinforces need for trial [Paras 17, 20].

Prior Complaint and Alleged Compromise – Earlier complaint allegedly withdrawn by victim and departmental enquiry report relied upon by accused – Such material not part of charge-sheet and disputed by victim – Cannot be basis for quashing criminal proceedings at threshold [Paras 12, 22].

Reliance on Precedents – Limited Applicability – Judgments relating to consensual relationships and breach of promise under IPC regime cannot be mechanically applied to Section 69 B.N.S., which introduces a distinct statutory offence – Each case must be examined on its own prima facie facts [Paras 16, 21–22].

Decision: Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. dismissed – Charge-sheet, cognizance order and criminal proceedings allowed to continue – No case made out for quashing at pre-trial stage.

Trade Marks – Interim Injunction – Registered Word Mark “SIYARAM” – Use as Part of Corporate Name and Composite Label – Plaintiff registered proprietor since 1986 – Strong presumption of validity attaches to registered mark – Defendants neither challenged registration nor pleaded invalidity – Plaintiff entitled to statutory protection under Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Paras 57(A)].

Trade Marks – Prior User – Claim Through Predecessor – Alleged use by father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 since 1992 – No pleading or proof of assignment or transfer of mark with goodwill – Multi-brand retail store not exclusively identified with mark – Claim of prior use legally untenable – Defendants at best can claim use only from incorporation in 2006, long after Plaintiff’s adoption and registration [Paras 57(B)–(C)].

Trade Marks – Dishonest Adoption – Knowledge of Plaintiff’s Reputation and Goodwill – Defendant’s predecessor sold Plaintiff’s goods as authorised dealer – Entire Plaintiff’s mark subsumed in Defendant’s corporate name and label – Conscious and calculated adoption amounts to dishonesty – Once dishonesty established, injunction must follow [Paras 57(D)–(E)].

Passing Off – Goodwill and Reputation – Continuous and extensive use since 1977/1978 – Long-standing registrations – Substantial sales and advertising expenditure certified by Chartered Accountant – Judicial recognition in prior cases – Prima facie goodwill sufficiently established at interlocutory stage – Proof of actual confusion not mandatory [Paras 57(H), 49].

Trade Marks – Honest Adoption – Irrelevance – Even assuming honest adoption, infringement and passing off not legitimised – Defendant cannot use corporate or trading name identical or deceptively similar to registered trade mark – Likelihood of confusion presumed where identical mark used for similar goods [Paras 57(F)].

Trade Marks – Composite Mark Registration – Section 28(3) – No Defence to Passing Off – Registration of label “Apricott – a Product of Stanford Siyaram Fashions Pvt. Ltd.” does not confer exclusivity over word “SIYARAM” – Section 17 clarifies no exclusive rights in individual components – Defence rejected [Paras 57(G)].

Trade Marks – Names of Hindu Gods – Registrability and Enforceability – “Siyaram” not descriptive of textile goods – Acquired distinctiveness through long use – No statutory bar under Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Defendants estopped from pleading non-distinctiveness after seeking registration incorporating “Siyaram” [Paras 57(I)].

Delay and Acquiescence – Interim Relief – Mere passage of time not fatal – Acquiescence requires positive encouragement by Plaintiff – Dishonest adoption renders delay insignificant – Plaintiff not disentitled to injunction [Paras 57(J)].

Decision – Notice of Motion Allowed – Interim injunction granted restraining Defendants from using “Siyaram” as part of corporate name or trade mark – Prayer clauses (a) and (b) granted – Balance of convenience in favour of Plaintiff – Irreparable injury presumed [Paras 58–59].