Service Law – Municipal Recruitment – Sanitation Workers – Daily wage CLR workers with long years of service permitted to participate in selection pursuant to interim court orders – Selection conducted on merits along with Employment Exchange candidates – Wider zone of consideration permissible – No illegality in appointing daily wagers who succeeded in selection – Employment Exchange-only restriction not absolute – Writs by daily wage workers allowed; writs by Employment Exchange candidates dismissed [Paras 19–27].

Regularisation – Daily Wage / CLR Workers – No automatic right to regularisation – However, when daily wage workers were allowed to participate in a full, competitive selection process and emerged successful, their appointment cannot be denied – Distinction drawn between “regularisation as of right” and “appointment after due selection” [Paras 19–21].

Employment Exchange – G.O. dated 22.04.1982 – Employment Exchange sponsorship mandatory in ordinary circumstances – However, following Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao principle, Employment Exchange cannot be sole channel – Fair selection requires wider notification or inclusion of eligible workers – Daily wage workers validly included in selection pursuant to Court order – No bar to considering them on merit [Paras 20–22].

Constitutional Law – Equality in Public Employment – Restricting selection exclusively to Employment Exchange candidates may deprive eligible persons of opportunity – Court relied on Visweshwara Rao to uphold broader zone of consideration – Selection found fair, merit-based, and uniform for both groups [Paras 21–23].

Recruitment Process – Validity – Municipality produced consolidated select list; no allegation of exclusion, bias or mala fides – All candidates (Employment Exchange nominees + CLR workers) evaluated under same criteria – Selection upheld as lawful [Para 23].

Relief – Petitioners (CLR workers) in WP(C) Nos. 15142 & 15146/2023 directed to be appointed as Substitute Sanitation Workers as per merit list – WP(C) 15500/2023 & 20483/2025 (Employment Exchange candidates) dismissed except to extent selected candidates among them will be appointed – WP(C) 37605/2024 partly allowed with direction to include CLR workers with >10 years’ service in future selection in Thrippunithura Municipality [Final Paras].

Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – Sale by Karta – Plaintiffs, sons of the first defendant, challenged sale of 0.70 cents of ancestral property made by their father (first defendant) in favour of his brother (second defendant) – Property was ancestral, and plaintiffs had birthright – Held: Sale deed not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Alienation by karta not for legal necessity or benefit of estate – Such sale is voidable, not void – Trial court’s finding upheld [Paras 14–20, 23(a)–(b)].

Property Law – Validity of Sale – Ancestral Property – Settlement deed in favour of first defendant does not convert ancestral property into self-acquisition – Nomenclature of document irrelevant – Legal character of property remains unchanged – Coparceners cannot be divested of birthright through unilateral settlement by father [Paras 15–16].

Burden of Proof – Legal Necessity – Under Mitakshara law, burden lies on purchaser (second defendant) to prove sale by karta was for legal necessity – Mere indebtedness or personal hardship of the karta not sufficient – Held: Second defendant failed to discharge burden – Plaintiffs entitled to protection of their undivided share [Para 17].

Partition – Sale During Minority – Plaintiffs, being minors at the time of sale, entitled to challenge the alienation – Since sale not shown to be for necessity or benefit of family, transaction is not binding on their share – However, second defendant entitled to seek equitable allotment in final decree from vendor’s (first defendant’s) share [Paras 19–21].

Equity – Final Decree Proceedings – Trial court’s direction to allot “0.70 share” to second defendant modified – Held: Precise metes and bounds to be fixed during final decree based on value and soil condition – Sale deed to be honoured only to the extent of first defendant’s share [Paras 21–22, 23(c)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification – Sale deed dated 10.10.2005 held valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Second defendant entitled to equitable allotment from first defendant’s share in final decree – No order as to costs [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Cross-Examination – Statutory Right – Accused facing charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 & 392 IPC – Opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 (prosecutrix) and PW-2 (her mother) closed by trial court on first day of their examination as defence counsel was unwell – Subsequent application under Section 311 CrPC for recall of witnesses also rejected – Held: Cross-examination is a vital statutory right under Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act – Denial of such opportunity vitiates fair trial [Paras 1–6, 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 CrPC – Recalling Witnesses – Trial court rejected application under Section 311 CrPC without considering that defence counsel was medically indisposed – Held: Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to recall and re-examine any witness if their evidence appears essential for a just decision – Power must be exercised to further the cause of justice – Failure to recall key witnesses in this case amounted to miscarriage of justice [Paras 9–10]

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Recalling Witnesses – Reliance placed on Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461 – Court reiterated that Section 311 CrPC should be used judicially, with fairness to the accused as a paramount consideration – Discretion must aim to ensure a complete and just adjudication of criminal trial [Para 11]

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders dated 03.04.2024 and 10.05.2024 set aside – Trial Court directed to re-summon PW-1 and PW-2 and afford petitioner opportunity to cross-examine them – All pending applications disposed of.

Telecom Law – Jurisdiction of TDSAT – Dispute Between Service Providers – Plaintiff (a Class 'A' ISP) and Defendant No.1 (a Category 'A' ITSP) entered into an Operational Merger Agreement (OMA) for resource and infrastructure integration – Allegations of breach of contract, disruption of services, and withholding of infrastructure affecting thousands of end consumers – Held: Dispute is between service providers and directly impacts users—Squarely falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Section 14(a)(ii) of TRAI Act—Civil suit not maintainable [Paras 3, 22–26, 38–39]

Civil Procedure – Bar of Jurisdiction – Section 15 of TRAI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining disputes that TDSAT is competent to adjudicate – Inclusion of individual directors and foreign parent company (non-service providers) does not alter the core nature of the dispute – Allegations against Defendants 2–5 arise from their roles within service provider operations – No distinct cause of action independent of the primary dispute – Civil court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 30–35]

Consumer Impact – Scope of TRAI Act – Plaintiff admitted disruption of service to approx. 19,000 residential and commercial users including hospitals, schools, and government bodies – Held: Where dispute affects a large body of consumers, TDSAT as the expert tribunal must adjudicate – Object of TRAI Act is to ensure consumer protection and orderly growth of telecom sector [Paras 24–26]

Contractual Disputes – Private Agreement Between Telecom Operators – Plaintiff argued dispute arose from a private contractual arrangement unrelated to regulatory functions – Court rejected argument citing binding precedent that even private agreements between service providers fall within TDSAT’s domain if consumer interests are affected or sectoral regulation is implicated [Paras 27–29]

Distinction from Precedents – Cases relied upon by plaintiff (e.g., Amrit Aneja, Hathway Digital) held inapplicable – Those disputes involved non-service providers or employer-employee issues – In contrast, current dispute involves operational failures and service disruptions between two licensed service providers [Paras 36–37]

Decision:Suit held not maintainable – Dispute falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Sections 14 and 15 of the TRAI Act – Civil court barred from entertaining the matter – Plaint rejected – Pending applications disposed of accordingly.

Employees Compensation – Territorial Jurisdiction – Dismissal of Claim – Appellants challenged dismissal of compensation claim by Commissioner, Thane, for want of territorial jurisdiction – Deceased claimant initially resided in Thane when application was filed but later shifted to Uttar Pradesh – Employer based in Gujarat and accident occurred in Gujarat – Insurance company had branch office at Thane – Held: Though the employer’s registered office was not at Thane, the claimant’s ordinary residence at the time of filing and the insurer’s business presence in Thane established territorial jurisdiction – Commissioner’s rejection on jurisdictional ground was incorrect – Hyper-technical approach must be avoided in beneficial legislation like EC Act [Paras 6, 14, 38-43].

Substantial Question of Law – Appeal under Section 30 EC Act – Whether dismissal on ground of territorial jurisdiction raised substantial question of law – Held: Interpretation of ‘ordinary residence’ and relevance of insurer’s business presence involve substantial legal issues – Commissioner failed to consider this appropriately – Findings liable to be set aside [Paras 8, 11-13].

Insurance Law – Coverage under Vehicle Package Policy – Risk of employment injury covered under Employees’ Compensation Act – Insurer’s liability contractual and enforceable – Presence of insurer’s branch office, though not specified under EC Act, relevant in light of CPC principles – Insurer entitled to support Commissioner’s findings despite not raising territorial objection earlier [Paras 22-28, 40-41].

Remand – Improper Dismissal – Commissioner’s findings on employment and accident not interfered with – Matter remanded to determine compensation and apportionment of liability between employer and insurer – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 43-44].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Dismissal of claim on territorial jurisdiction grounds set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner for hearing on compensation and liability – Final disposal directed within three months from 23rd November 2025.

Property Law – Communal Land – Order I Rule 8 CPC – Adverse Possession by State – Identity of Land – State estopped from claiming adverse possession – Suit partly maintainable – Declaration granted for Hal Plot No.1575; claim rejected for “Smasana” land [Paras 15–29].

Communal Land – “Smasana” – Necessity of Representative Suit – Non-Joinder – Suit Not Maintainable – Hal Plot No.1563 recorded as “Smasana” is communal land in which entire village has common interest – Plaintiffs failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC before seeking declaration of title – Villagers of Mouza Attopur-Badapokharital being necessary parties, suit in respect of A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 rightly dismissed by courts below – Held: No error in concurrent findings dismissing claim regarding “Smasana” land [Paras 15–18].

Adverse Possession – Plea by State – Impermissible – Implied Admission of Plaintiff’s Title and Identity of Property – State pleaded long possession and prescriptive title over A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Such plea amounts to implicit admission of plaintiffs’ title and identity of the suit land – As per settled law, the State cannot perfect title by adverse possession against its own citizens – Trial Court’s and First Appellate Court’s findings denying identity and ownership unsustainable – Held: State precluded from claiming adverse possession; plaintiffs’ title stands established [Paras 19–25].

Title and Identity – Establishment through Defendant’s Admissions – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Once State claimed adverse possession, identity of A.0.09 decimals in Plot No.1575 stands admitted – Concurrent findings that plaintiffs failed to identify suit land contradicted legal effect of State’s plea – High Court interferes with concurrent findings under Section 100 CPC as findings were perverse and contrary to settled principles [Paras 22–26].

Relief – Partial Decree – Declaration of Title and Direction for RoR Correction – Suit dismissed for A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 (“Smasana”) – Suit decreed for A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Plaintiffs declared owners; State declared to have no right, title or interest – Possession confirmed in favour of plaintiffs – State directed to correct RoR accordingly – Appeal allowed in part [Paras 27–29].

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Secondary Evidence – Original Cheque Lost – Complainant sought to mark photocopy of cheque under Section 65 of Evidence Act after discovering original was missing – Trial Court rejected plea citing lack of explanation and absence of return memo – Held: Respondent had not denied existence of cheque but only disputed ink and handwriting – Court directed that photostat copy be marked as primary evidence – All defences left open for trial [Paras 2, 4, 5]

Criminal Procedure – Revision – Interference with Trial Court’s Discretion – Rejection of secondary evidence without considering surrounding documentary evidence including promissory note, legal notice, reply – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanically rejecting the application – Revision allowed to avoid miscarriage of justice in a long pending matter [Paras 4, 5]

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Photostat Copy – Permissibility – Where original cheque is lost and its existence is corroborated by other documents such as promissory note and notices – Held: Photocopy admissible under Section 65 of Evidence Act – Respondent free to challenge genuineness during trial [Paras 4, 5]

Trial Directions – Expeditious Disposal – Case pending since 2014 – Directed to be posted on day-to-day basis and completed within two months from receipt of order [Para 6]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order of trial court set aside – Photostat copy of cheque permitted to be marked as primary evidence – Trial Court directed to complete trial within two months – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed [Paras 5-7]

Criminal Law – Police Harassment – Herbal Hookah in Restaurant – Petitioner alleged police interference with lawful restaurant operation citing alleged sale of tobacco-laced hookah – Petitioner claimed use of only herbal substances without nicotine – Held: Police not to interfere with restaurant business unless illegal activity is found – Direction issued to petitioner to approach FSSAI for certification [Paras 1-3, 7-8]

Tobacco Control – COTPA Act – Section 4A – Hookah Bars – State amendment prohibits hookah bars – Whether petitioner’s hookah product contains tobacco or nicotine is a factual issue to be verified by competent authorities – Held: Court cannot act on mere oral claims – Matter to be decided by FSSAI and not by the Court [Paras 5-6]

Food Safety – Jurisdiction of FSSAI – Products inhaled via hookah without tobacco/nicotine fall within the definition of “food” under Section 2(za) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – FSSAI to test samples and verify composition – If product is free of tobacco/nicotine, petitioner can continue operating hookah bar [Paras 6-9]

Police Powers – Surveillance vs Harassment – Though restaurant is located near educational institutions, police can only act if illegal activities are found – General interference in routine lawful business not permitted – Police liberty preserved to act if any illegality is detected [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of – Petitioner directed to approach FSSAI with product ingredients – Police restrained from interference in lawful business unless illegality is found – Petitioner at liberty to continue business if products are certified tobacco/nicotine-free [Para 8]

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 Conviction – Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence under Art. 227/Section 482 CrPC – Change of company name does not invalidate complaint – Authorised representative proved – Defence payments not proved – Concurrent findings upheld – Revision dismissed [Paras 25–33].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Ingredients Established – Conviction Proper – Complainant proved supply of goods, issuance of cheque, dishonour for “Insufficient Funds”, service of statutory notice, and failure to pay within statutory period – Petitioners did not dispute issuance of cheque nor reply to notice – Defence of prior payments (Rs.1,00,000/– and Rs.2,00,000/–) unsupported by admissible evidence – Held: All statutory ingredients of Section 138 NI Act satisfied; no perversity in concurrent conviction [Paras 22–25].

Revisional/Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 & Section 482 CrPC – No Re-Appreciation of Evidence – Revisional/supervisory power is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, perversity, patent illegality or miscarriage of justice – High Court cannot act as a second appellate court or reassess credibility of witnesses – Interference only if findings are based on no evidence or are manifestly perverse – Held: No such infirmity shown; revisional challenge rejected [Paras 26–30].

Corporate Law – Change of Company Name – Complaint in Old Name Maintainable – Complainant company’s subsequent change from “Ltd.” to “Private Ltd.” does not invalidate proceedings already instituted – Rights and liabilities of old entity vest in new entity by operation of Section 23(1) of Companies Act, 1956 – Pending proceedings may continue in old name – Held: Complaint not defective; no requirement to amend cause title; authorised representative validly proved by board resolutions (Ext.1/1) [Paras 31–32].

Authorisation to Represent Company – Valid Board Resolution – Complaint Maintainable – Complainant produced board resolution authorising initial representative; upon his departure, fresh resolution authorised PW-1 – Held: Proper authority established; objection meritless [Para 31].

Case Law Relied Upon – Applicability – Decisions cited by petitioners on non-existence of complainant company, lack of authority, and presumption rebuttal held inapplicable on facts; defence failed to rebut statutory presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act [Paras 25, 31].

Result – Revision Dismissed – Interim Orders Vacated – Trial Court to Proceed – No grounds to interfere with concurrent findings – C.R.R. 4568 of 2023 dismissed; interim order vacated; Trial Court to act on server copy [Paras 33–36].