Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Scope of Judicial Review – Tribunal reappreciated oral and documentary evidence and substituted its own findings for that of Enquiry Officer – Held: In disciplinary matters Court/Tribunal is concerned with decision making process and not sufficiency of evidence – Once findings are supported by some evidence and enquiry is conducted in accordance with rules, reappreciation is impermissible – Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction [Paras 19-22, 59].

Natural Justice – Alleged Non-Supply of Fact Finding Report and Audio Transcript – Preliminary fact finding report prepared without notice – Regular enquiry thereafter conducted with charge sheet, cross examination and defence evidence – No demonstrable prejudice shown regarding audio recording – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice – Mere irregularity without proof of prejudice does not vitiate enquiry [Paras 23-29, 59].

Service Misconduct – Issuance of Tender Forms to Ineligible Contractors – Junior Engineer processed and endorsed scrutiny sheets despite absence of valid registration and solvency certificates – Duty Chart (Exh. C-12) assigned responsibility of issuance and opening of tenders – Plea of acting under superior’s instructions rejected – Obedience to superior is no defence to ex facie violation of mandatory procedure – Finding based on documentary material not perverse [Paras 30-37].

Tender Procedure – Opening of Financial Bids of Ineligible Contractors – Two-envelope system violated – Respondent admitted opening both envelopes and preparing comparative statements – Misconduct not confined to final decision making authority – Participation in breach of prescribed procedure sufficient – Tribunal erred in treating Respondent as mere ministerial assistant [Paras 38-43].

Corruption in Service – Acceptance of Gratification – Specific oral testimony of contractor supported by recorded conversation – Standard of proof in departmental enquiry is preponderance of probabilities – Absence of final authority to award contract not determinative – Finding of guilt not based on no evidence nor perverse [Paras 44-51].

Punishment – Compulsory Retirement – Proportionality – Misconduct involved breach of tender norms and acceptance of illegal gratification – Compulsory retirement a major but permissible penalty – Not shockingly disproportionate – Reinstatement with full back wages unwarranted in absence of pleading and proof of unemployment – Tribunal’s interference unsustainable [Paras 52-58].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Judgment and Order dated 14/07/2006 of University and College Tribunal set aside – Order dated 20/04/2005 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement restored – Respondent not entitled to back wages – No order as to costs [Paras 59-60].

Essential Commodities Act – Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) – Unauthorised storage of HSD Oil, Kerosene and Fertilizers – Seizure during inspection – Failure to produce licence, documents or stock registers – Prosecution proved seizure and non-compliance with Control Orders – Held: Conviction justified on evidence and statutory presumptions under Sections 10C and 14 EC Act – No interference with findings of guilt [Paras 6-9, 11-12].

Search and Seizure – Challenge to authority under Kerosene Control Order – Appellant contended inspection not by duly authorised officer under Para 15 of 1968 Order – Court found seizure proved and non-production of documents unexplained – Trial not vitiated on alleged procedural irregularities in absence of prejudice [Paras 4(iii), 6-8, 11].

Storage versus Sale – Defence plea that mere storage does not establish dealing – Court held appellant failed to show lawful possession or agricultural use – No books of accounts, licence or returns produced as required under Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 – Presumption of culpable mental state under Section 10C EC Act attracted – Burden on accused under Section 14 not discharged [Paras 4(i), 4(v), 6-9].

Amendment to Para 11(2) of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order – Appellant argued amendment effective from 07.01.1986 not applicable to incident of 30.08.1984 – Court noted absence of any document showing bona fide possession even otherwise – Contravention established independently of amendment plea [Paras 4(iv), 8-9].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability despite Minimum Sentence under EC Act – Offence committed in 1984 – Long lapse of nearly 42 years – Appellant remained on bail and no subsequent offence reported – Following Tarak Nath Keshari and principle that Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later legislation with non obstante clause can override minimum sentence – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of probation under Section 4 PO Act [Paras 12-14].

Sentencing – Reformative Approach – After prolonged pendency, sending appellant to custody not expedient in interest of justice – Appellant directed to execute bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties and to maintain peace and good behaviour – Fine enhanced to Rs.20,000/- payable within 60 days – In default to serve sentence [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act upheld – Instead of custodial sentence, appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on execution of bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties – Fine of Rs.20,000/- to be paid within 60 days, failing which sentence to be served – Appeal disposed of.

Family Courts Act — Section 7 — Code of Civil Procedure — Section 24 — Power of Transfer — Family Court — Whether Vested — Family Court No. 1, Bharatpur transferred four pending matrimonial cases to Family Court No. 2 relying on general view expressed by learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in order dated 24.04.2017 — Family Court No. 2 expressed doubt as to whether such power vested in the Family Court and referred the matter to the High Court — Held: Section 7 of the Family Courts Act governs the jurisdiction of Family Courts and does not envisage or confer any power upon the Family Court to transfer cases from one Family Court to another, even within the same city or district — Power of transfer under Section 24 CPC is distinct, exclusive, and independent and vests only in the High Court or the District Court — Such power is exerciseable only in respect of proceedings pending before a Court subordinate to it — One Family Court is not subordinate to another Family Court in the same district — Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, being a special statute, prevails over the general provision of Section 24 CPC — Question No. 1 answered in the negative: Family Court lacks jurisdiction to transfer cases from one Family Court to another under Section 24 CPC [Paras 15–24].

Family Courts — Transfer of Cases — Which Court Competent — High Court or District Court — Whether Family Court Is Subordinate to District Court — Family Court established under Section 3 of the Family Courts Act exercises jurisdiction equivalent to that of the District Court or subordinate civil court in respect of matters under Section 7(1)(a) — By virtue of Section 7(1)(b), Family Court is deemed to be a District Court for purposes of exercising such jurisdiction — However, a Family Court cannot be considered subordinate to the Principal District Court for purposes of Section 24 CPC — Held: Transfer of cases from one Family Court to another, whether within the same district or between two districts within the same State, can be exercised by the High Court alone under Sections 22, 23 and 24 CPC — Power of transfer under Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act also exerciseable only by a Court empowered under Section 24 CPC, not by the Family Court — Administrative allocation of work among Judges of the same Family Court is distinct from judicial power of transfer [Paras 19–22].

Single Judge's General View — Per Incuriam — Binding Precedent — Whether Single Judge Can Vest Transfer Power in Family Court by Judicial Order — Learned Single Judge, while deciding a transfer application in 2017, expressed a general view that Family Courts situated in the same city may exercise power of transfer suo motu or on an application by parties — Held: Such view cannot be held to be in conformity with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act or Section 24 CPC — The Single Judge's view was expressed without considering that Section 7 of the Family Courts Act does not confer transfer power on Family Courts and without appreciating that transfer under Section 24 CPC is exerciseable only in respect of subordinate courts — The general view expressed in para Nos. 4, 6 and 9 of the order dated 24.04.2017 is held to be per incuriam and does not constitute a binding judicial precedent — No judicial order of a Single Judge of the High Court can vest in the Family Court a power of transfer not conferred by its special statute — Questions Nos. 2 and 3 answered accordingly [Paras 25–26].

Decision: Civil Reference disposed of — Order dated 06.12.2025 passed by Family Court No. 1, Bharatpur transferring cases without jurisdiction declared non-est — Parties at liberty to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 24 CPC — General view expressed in para Nos. 4, 6 and 9 of order dated 24.04.2017 of learned Single Judge declared per incuriam and not binding on Family Courts — Copy of order directed to be sent to Family Court Nos. 1 and 2, Bharatpur and circulated to all Family Courts in the State of Rajasthan where more than one Family Court has been established [Paras 27–29].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Confirmed – Accused Nos.1 and 2 convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for inflicting multiple sword blows on vital parts of deceased – Ocular evidence of wife (PW-2) corroborated by independent witness (PW-5) regarding chase with blood-stained swords – Medical evidence established homicidal death due to penetrating chest injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Recovery of swords under Section 27 Evidence Act and FSL report confirming deceased’s blood on weapons and clothes of accused – Held: Complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 23, 26, 29, 36].

Ocular Evidence – Related Witness – Minor Contradictions – Testimony of complainant-wife found substantially reliable despite minor discrepancies regarding sequence and attribution of blows – Such variations held natural in traumatic incident – Core prosecution case remained intact and corroborated by independent evidence – Principle of “sifting grain from chaff” applied [Paras 14, 26-27].

Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery of Weapon – Swords recovered at instance of accused from bushes – Even though some panch witnesses partly hostile, recovery sustained through panchnama, Investigating Officer’s testimony and FSL corroboration – Discovery distinctly connected with information given by accused – Recovery held reliable incriminating circumstance [Paras 20, 30-31].

FSL Evidence – Blood Stains – Serological report established deceased’s blood group on clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 and on recovered swords – Accused failed to explain incriminating circumstance in Section 313 CrPC statements – Adverse inference drawn – Scientific evidence formed clinching link in chain [Paras 22, 32].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Prior quarrel and threats established motive – Accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly chased and assaulted deceased with deadly weapons on vital parts – Acts done with knowledge and intention likely to cause death – Offence squarely falls under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – No Exception to Section 300 attracted [Paras 13, 23, 29].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Interference – Accused No.3 acquitted of charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Evidence insufficient to establish shared common intention to commit murder – Her role limited to quarrel and assault on complainant – Applying principles in Chandrappa and Rajesh Prasad, no perversity found in acquittal – State appeal dismissed [Paras 33-35, 36.1].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal No.1515 of 2013 (by accused Nos.1 and 2) dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine confirmed – Accused to surrender within six weeks.

Criminal Appeal No.1315 of 2013 (by State against acquittal of accused No.3) dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Civil Law - Eviction – Reasonable Requirement – Anticipated Retirement – Landlord sought eviction for own use for business upon husband’s impending retirement – Contention that future requirement is no requirement – Held: Requirement certain to arise in reasonably foreseeable future satisfies test of reasonable requirement – Claim neither fanciful nor exaggerated – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras relating to Q. XIV, discussion on Mono Ranjan Dasgupta].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found reasonable requirement and valid service of notice – No perversity or error of law demonstrated – Held: Concurrent findings demand no interference in second appeal [Final paragraphs before dismissal].

Notice to Quit – Service by Registered Post – Postal endorsement “Not Claimed” – No plea of absence or shifting from premises – Held: Endorsement “not claimed” amounts to valid service when notice properly addressed and tendered – Presumption of service sustainable – Tenancy validly determined [Discussion referring to Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand; Subhas C. Mitra].

Death of One of Legal Heirs of Tenant – Joint Tenancy – Decree against Dead Person – All legal heirs of original tenant were impleaded – On death of widow, other joint tenants remained on record – Held: Tenancy devolves as joint tenancy – Decree against one joint tenant binds all – Suit does not abate – Decree not a nullity [Discussion under Additional Substantial Questions XVII & XVIII; reliance on Suresh Kumar Kohli].

Order XXII CPC – Abatement – Where other legal heirs of deceased tenant already on record, non-substitution of one heir does not vitiate decree – Joint decree permissible – No error by First Appellate Court in rejecting plea [Relevant discussion on applicability of Order XXII Rule 7 CPC].

Relief – Delivery of Possession – Appellants directed to vacate within 60 days from drawing up of appellate decree – In default execution permissible – Liberty granted to Respondent to claim mesne profits in separate suit.

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court as affirmed by First Appellate Court upheld – Appellants directed to deliver possession within sixty days – Liberty to Respondent to initiate execution and to institute separate suit for mesne profits – All connected applications disposed of.

Devaswom Board – Temple Administration – Welfare of Temple Animals – Complaint regarding deplorable condition of Gosala at Vaikom Mahadeva Temple – Allegation of starvation, inadequate shelter, poor drainage, lack of veterinary care and non-appointment of full-time cowherd – Ombudsman’s Report No.48/2025 placed before Court – Photographs and Advocate Commissioner’s report revealed pathetic condition of bulls and cows donated by devotees through ritual ‘nadayiruthal’ – Held: Travancore Devaswom Board has shown little priority to welfare of animals and systemic lapses require immediate corrective measures [Paras 2–9].

Animal Welfare – Religious Significance of Nandi – Court referred to Nandi Upapurana describing Nandi as vahana and foremost devotee of Lord Shiva – Observed that bulls and cows in temple premises are objects of reverence and their neglect is shocking and disturbing – Temple authorities bound to ensure dignity, hygiene and proper care of animals donated by devotees [Paras 10–11].

Administrative Accountability – Directions to Devaswom Board – Court directed designation of specific Administrative Officer responsible for Gosala maintenance – Mandated repairs to cowshed, separate feeding spaces for bulls and cows, proper drainage and ventilation, appointment of full-time cowherd (Gopalakan), enhancement of fodder arrangements and opening of separate bank account exclusively for Gosala maintenance – Officer made directly answerable to Court and liable for lapses – Ombudsman directed to conduct regular and surprise inspections [Paras 12–14].

Policy Direction – Long-term Measures – Board permitted to retain one bull symbolically at Vaikom and shift others to Kalikavu Bull Protection Centre – Directed to complete repairs at Kalikavu within three months – Board advised to prepare comprehensive master plan for establishment and maintenance of Gosalas in Siva temples using dedicated funds and sponsorships [Paras 13–14].

Decision: DBP disposed of with detailed mandatory directions – Compliance affidavit to be filed within three months – Matter posted for compliance report on 25/05/2026.

Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act – Deemed Conveyance – Scope of Section 11 – Promoter’s obligation to convey “his right, title and interest” – Developers contended that only leasehold rights were contemplated under allotment letters and development agreements – No registered lease ever executed – Land continued to vest in owner who obtained IOD and Commencement Certificate and caused construction – Held: Under Section 11(1), promoter must convey entire interest actually held by him – If promoter holds ownership, ownership must pass to society – Private contractual clauses cannot dilute statutory mandate – Deemed conveyance of ownership upheld [Paras 46-52, 79-82].

Promoter – Wide definition under Section 2(c) MOFA – Includes person who constructs or causes construction – Owner obtaining development permissions and enabling construction through developer falls within definition – Promoter cannot avoid statutory obligations by splitting roles between owner and developer – Substance of transaction to prevail over form [Paras 36-43, 77-79].

Contractual Clauses vs Statutory Mandate – Allotment letters and flat agreements repeatedly referring to “lease” – Municipal condition initially prohibiting leasing for ten years – No executed lease deed in existence – Held: Mere intention to grant lease does not create leasehold estate – Unexecuted proposal cannot restrict statutory entitlement of society – Section 11 read with Rule 5 and Form V overrides contrary drafting [Paras 64-66, 75-79].

Deemed Conveyance – Nature of estate transferable – Society entitled to entire estate held by promoter – If promoter holds freehold, ownership must be conveyed – If promoter holds leasehold, full leasehold must be assigned – Promoter cannot retain superior interest and transfer fragmentary rights – Legislative intent is to secure collective ownership for flat purchasers [Paras 48-52, 56-57, 61-63].

Precedent – Reliance on earlier order granting only assignment of lease in another society (Mahavir CHS) – Held: Deemed conveyance proceedings are fact specific – Outcome depends on nature of title in each case – Earlier order not determinative without identical title position [Paras 68-73].

Consumer Protection Objective – MOFA enacted to prevent promoters from indefinitely retaining title after sale of flats – Statutory scheme mandates formation of society and transfer of full interest within prescribed period – Interpretation must advance protective purpose of legislation [Paras 28-35, 46-47].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Impugned orders granting unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of respective respondent societies upheld – Authorities directed to complete consequential steps – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner (Accused No.14) absconded during trial – Co-accused (Accused Nos.1-13, 15-21) tried and acquitted on 30.08.2025 – Trial Court held prosecution failed to prove conspiracy, motive, presence and recovery – Independent witnesses turned hostile – No cogent, coherent or convincing evidence to establish chain of circumstances – Held: When entire prosecution case collapsed and co-accused acquitted on merits, continuation of split-up proceedings against similarly placed accused would be futile – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-9].

Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Establish Complete Chain – Trial Court relied on principles in Hanumant v. State of M.P., Govindareddy v. State of Mysore and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Panch witnesses did not support recovery – No proof of conspiracy under Section 10 of Evidence Act – Independent witnesses hostile – Held: Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence – Benefit extended to petitioner on parity [Para 7].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Prevention of Abuse of Process – Though absconding accused ordinarily required to face trial, Court may exercise inherent powers to save precious judicial time where inevitable result of trial would be acquittal in view of earlier judgment on identical evidence – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Para 9].

Murder and Unlawful Assembly – Sections 302, 143-149 IPC – Entire case rested on circumstantial evidence – With acquittal of all other accused and total failure of prosecution evidence, split-up case cannot survive independently on same material [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Proceedings in S.C. No.1529/2021 pending before I/c LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru quashed qua petitioner (Accused No.14) – Petitioner entitled to be set at liberty – Registry directed to communicate order to jail authorities for release in accordance with law [Para 10].

Civil Law – Decree Against Dead Person – Nullity – Plaintiff obtained ex parte decree dated 31.5.2022 declaring ownership by adverse possession against Sushila Mehra who had died on 02.04.1996 – Suit instituted and decreed against a dead person – Applying ratio of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade and Ashok Transport Agency – Held: Decree passed against a dead person is a nullity and confers no right, title or interest – Such nullity can be set up whenever and wherever decree is sought to be enforced – Trial court erred in treating earlier decree as binding and executable [Paras 38, 43].

Mutation and Payment of House Tax – No Conferment of Title – Plaintiff relied upon house tax receipts and acceptance of tax by Nagar Nigam – Disputed property recorded as “Muraga Khana” in municipal records – Held: Mutation entries and payment of municipal taxes are only for fiscal purposes and do not create or extinguish title – Ownership must be independently proved – Mere acceptance of tax does not validate claim of ownership [Paras 39-41, 29-31].

Adverse Possession – Tenant Claiming Ownership – Impermissibility – Plaintiff admitted that his father entered property as tenant/licensee under Sushila Mehra in 1969 and rent was paid till 1996 – Held: Possession of tenant is permissive and cannot be converted into adverse possession against landlord unless clear hostile assertion and surrender of tenancy proved – Tenant cannot deny title of landlord – Trial court erred in declaring ownership on basis of adverse possession in earlier suit [Paras 32, 42, 28].

Evidence – Death Certificate – Rejection on Hyper-Technical Ground – Defendants produced copy of death certificate and documents from Delhi High Court proceedings showing death of Sushila Mehra in 1996 – Trial court rejected death certificate as photocopy – Held: Death and birth certificates are ordinarily produced in certified copies – No conceivable benefit to Nagar Nigam in fabricating such certificate – Rejection of document was perverse and unjustified – Trial court ignored material evidence [Paras 35-37, 44].

Mandatory Injunction – Reliance on Void Decree – Plaintiff sought direction to enter his name in property register on strength of void ex parte decree – Held: Since foundational decree was a nullity, no consequential relief could be granted – Trial court acted in total disregard of settled legal principles – Impugned decree unsustainable [Paras 34, 43].

Judicial Conduct – Observations – High Court found reasoning of trial court shocking and perverse – Directed placement of matter before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the concerned trial Judge [Paras 44, 47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 13.05.2025 passed in O.S. No. 960 of 2024 set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed with costs throughout – Matter directed to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the concerned Trial Judge.