Education Law – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Appellant challenged Director's order rejecting claim for promotion to 7th post of Lecturer in Physics – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition holding that statutory remedy under Section 24-B of Odisha Education Act was available before the Tribunal – Held: Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving eligibility and entitlement linked with grant-in-aid – Writ Court rightly declined to entertain the writ petition in light of specific statutory forum [Paras 1-6, 18-22]

Statutory Interpretation – Scope of Section 24-B of the O.E. Act – Dispute whether Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined only to “grant-in-aid” or extends to eligibility and entitlement for post approval and salary – Held: Legislative intent behind insertion of Section 24-B makes it clear that Tribunal’s power includes disputes concerning approval of posts, eligibility of appointment, and salary where such claims are related to grant-in-aid – Punctuation such as commas not decisive in interpreting statutory scope – Interpretation must serve purpose of amendment [Paras 7-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Statutory Remedy – Although High Court’s power under Article 226 is not ousted, writ jurisdiction may not be exercised where efficacious alternative remedy exists – Appellant previously approached Tribunal and cannot bypass it now – Forum shopping deprecated – Tribunal is competent forum to adjudicate disputes arising from administrative directions on post approval and salary [Paras 19-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error in learned Single Judge’s order relegating appellant to Odisha Education Tribunal – Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate challenge to rejection order dated 27.03.2025.

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from raising construction on agricultural land allegedly belonging to his ancestors – Claimed defendants obtained revenue entries fraudulently during consolidation – Courts below rejected injunction holding no prima facie title established and possession with defendants – Held: In absence of conclusive documents and pending challenge before Consolidation Officer, no prima facie case made out – Interlocutory relief rightly denied [Paras 1–7, 13–14]

Land Law – Consolidation Proceedings – Revenue Entries – Plaintiff challenged validity of consolidation allotment and mutation in separate proceedings – Until such challenge is resolved, existing entries hold the field – Courts held that long-standing entries in Jamabandi and possession support respondents – Mere allegation of forgery insufficient to disturb settled possession at interim stage [Paras 5, 8, 14–15]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Plaintiff failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in concurrent findings – High Court held that re-appreciation of facts not permissible in revision under Section 115 CPC – No ground for interference made out [Paras 16–17]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No merit in challenge to concurrent orders rejecting temporary injunction – All pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of [Paras 17–18]

Service Law – Leave Encashment – Dismissal from Service – Petitioner dismissed from service on account of criminal conviction – Claim for leave encashment rejected by competent authority under Rule 8.21 Punjab Civil Services Rules – Held: Dismissed employee not entitled to leave encashment [Paras 1-2, 7-8].

Service Rules – Punjab Civil Services Rules – Rule 8.21 and Rule 3.17-A(1)(ix) – Leave encashment payable only on retirement and not on dismissal by way of punishment – Dismissal entails forfeiture of past service – Benefit of leave encashment impermissible once service stands forfeited [Paras 6-7].

Precedent – Per Incuriam Decision – Reliance on Dhir Chand v. State of Haryana – Held: Judgment in Dhir Chand rendered per incuriam as relevant rules and Full Bench review order were not brought to notice – Subsequent binding decisions in Ram Kumar Ranga, Balwinder Singh, Harbans Lal and Rajesh Bhalla followed [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Discipline – Coordinate Bench Decisions – Later and reasoned coordinate bench judgments interpreting service rules to prevail over earlier decision rendered without considering binding instructions – Principle of per incuriam applied [Paras 6-7].

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Leave encashment as property – Held: Subject to statutory rules – Where rules expressly deny entitlement on dismissal, Article 300-A not attracted [Paras 6-7].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Mandamus – In absence of statutory entitlement, writ of mandamus for payment of leave encashment cannot be issued – Rejection order upheld [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 20.02.2023 rejecting claim for leave encashment upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to leave encashment after dismissal from service – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Rape – Conviction Set Aside – Accused convicted for offences under Sections 366A and 376 IPC for allegedly enticing and raping a 16-year-old girl – Victim voluntarily accompanied accused to Kanchipuram on pretext of marriage – No evidence of inducement or threat – Medical reports confirmed absence of physical injuries or recent intercourse – Held: Prosecution failed to prove offence under Section 366A or rape under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 17–21].

Criminal Law – Consent and Age – Applicability of Pre-Amendment Law – Offence occurred on 31.05.2011 – Victim was 16 years, 2 months, and 18 days old – As per unamended law, consent above 16 years relevant – Application of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 to incident predating its enforcement held impermissible – Retrospective application of stricter penal provision violates Article 20(1) of Constitution – Conviction under amended standards illegal [Paras 11, 25–30].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 114A – Not Applicable – Section 114A applies only to charges under Section 376(2) IPC – No such charge framed against accused – No presumption of lack of consent could be drawn – Victim’s testimony lacked corroboration – Medical evidence confirmed absence of force – Held: Burden remained on prosecution, not discharged [Paras 22–23].

Judicial Interpretation – Doctrine of Non-Retrospectivity – Trial court erroneously applied post-2013 rape law to offence committed in 2011 – Bar under Article 20(1) of Constitution is absolute – Law cannot impose enhanced punishment retrospectively – Conviction and sentence contrary to binding constitutional protections – Acquittal warranted [Paras 25–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 366A and 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bond cancelled – Trial court directed to comply – Judgment to be circulated among judiciary and prosecution for strict adherence.

Civil Law  – Commercial Suit – Admissions – Plaintiff MSME filed suit seeking ₹16.77 crores towards unpaid invoices for school bags supplied to Defendant No.1 under a Government tender – Defendant No.1 admitted outstanding amount in its written statement and ledger filed in related proceedings – Defendant’s defence of profit-sharing arrangement and contingent liability on Government payments found baseless – Held: Clear, unambiguous admission of liability in pleadings and documents satisfies requirements under Order XIII-A and Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Decree passed for ₹16,77,73,384/- without trial [Paras 1, 15–20, 32–38, 51–52].

Contract Law – Buyer-Seller Relationship – Back-to-Back Payment Defence – Defendant claimed payments were to be made only after receiving funds from Government departments – No written agreement establishing such arrangement – Tripartite Escrow Agreement and invoices establish principal-to-principal buyer-seller relationship – Held: Defendant liable to plaintiff irrespective of third-party payments – Plaintiff not party to Government tender or contract [Paras 43–50].

Commercial Law – Escrow Agreement – Ledger Entries – GST – Defendant’s own ledger showed outstanding dues to plaintiff – GST paid by plaintiff availed by defendant as input credit – Defendant admitted all 147 invoices in affidavit – Held: Financial records and admissions amount to acknowledgement of liability – Escrow agreement served to protect plaintiff’s interest and does not make payment conditional [Paras 34–41, 47–48].

Decision: Application under Order XIII-A allowed – Suit decreed for ₹16,77,73,384/- in favour of plaintiff against Defendant No.1 – Suit to continue for remaining reliefs [Paras 51–54].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Reconstruction of Building – Landlord sought eviction of tenant from commercial shop to reconstruct integrated block of 5 shops into hotel and restaurant for himself and his son – Son had undergone training and expressed intent to operate business – Courts below found requirement genuine – Held: Landlord is best judge of his need – Bona fide requirement not negated merely because son resides in Delhi – Longstanding possession by tenant does not defeat landlord’s right if intention is proved [Paras 3, 11–13, 29]

Rent Law – Dilapidated Premises – Condition of Building – Local Commissioner Report – Landlord pleaded building was over 50 years old and structurally unsafe – Local Commissioner, an SDO from PWD, supported claim – Tenants failed to rebut technical report with counter-evidence – Held: Absence of structural testing or formal notice not fatal – Visual and expert inspection sufficient when unrebutted – Finding of building being unfit upheld [Paras 14, 30]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts – Held: Scope of revision is limited to jurisdictional error or perversity – Where authorities considered all evidence and applied correct legal principles, no interference warranted [Paras 27, 33–34]

Evidence Law – Concealment of Other Properties – Relevance – Tenant alleged landlord owned other commercial properties – Held: Mere ownership insufficient – Tenant failed to prove landlord possessed any vacant, suitable alternative commercial property – Alleged transfers were family settlements made before eviction petition – No mala fides established [Paras 15, 28]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed in limine – Orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 33–34]

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Suit by Public Trust – Mandatory Consent Under MPT Act – Plaintiffs’ own pleadings and annexed documents repeatedly describing Defendant as “trustee/permanent trustee/erstwhile trustee” held decisive – Suit for recovery of compensation for misuse of trust property by a trustee falls squarely within Section 50 clauses (a), (e), (f), (p), (q) – Held: Without prior consent of Charity Commissioner under Section 51, suit is statutorily barred [Paras 11–18].

Trust Property – Recovery from Trustee – Section 50 MPT Act – Suit seeks recovery of compensation for occupation of trust property by Defendant during tenure as trustee – Documents (letters, opinions, correspondence) annexed to plaint addressing Defendant as trustee held to override later verbal assertions that he was a “trespasser” – Plaint averments read holistically demonstrate action against trustee for breach/misconduct, not trespass – Section 50 attracted [Paras 10–15].

Trespass Argument Rejected – Plaintiffs’ Case Inconsistent with Record – Plaintiffs’ attempt to classify Defendant as “rank trespasser” held untenable when plaint averments and exhibits consistently acknowledge him as trustee discharging obligations – Once trust itself admits fiduciary capacity, suit cannot be framed as simple trespass to bypass statutory requirement of consent [Paras 14–17].

Scope of Section 51 MPT Act – Consent Mandatory – When suit is of a nature specified under Section 50, plaintiffs must obtain Charity Commissioner’s prior written consent; Commissioner becomes necessary party – Absence of consent renders suit non-maintainable at inception – Bar attracts Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 16–18].

Pleadings Control O7R11(d) – Court Reiterates – For O7R11(d), plaint averments and plaint documents alone are considered – Defence cannot cure statutory bar – Here, plaint itself revealed suit to be one “relating to trustee” requiring consent; absence is fatal [Paras 7–12].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit held not maintainable without prior consent under Sections 50 & 51 MPT Act – Pending Interim Application No. 4005 of 2025 disposed [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law – Bail - Rape Allegation – Consent – Breach of Promise to Marry – Petitioner accused of offences under Sections 69 and 75(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS for allegedly refusing to marry the victim after a consensual relationship – Relationship between petitioner and respondent lasted over three years – Victim lodged complaint only after petitioner refused marriage – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, consensual relationship based on a genuine promise to marry, later not fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, does not amount to rape – FIR lacks allegations showing false promise from inception – No prima facie case under Section 69 BNS made out [Paras 3–14]

Bail – Principles for Grant – Promise to Marry – Consent and Misconception of Fact – Court relies on binding precedents from Supreme Court including Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Prithivirajan, Kunal Chatterjee, and Maheshwar Tigga – Held: Physical relations on the basis of a genuine promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it is proved that the promise was false from the beginning – Petitioner's prolonged relationship and absence of coercion negate allegation of misconception of fact – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 4–16]

Bail – Conditions Imposed – Accused directed to furnish bond with sureties and report weekly to police – Restrictions imposed on travel outside Andhra Pradesh and on influencing witnesses – Cooperation with investigation mandated [Para 16]

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Bail granted to the petitioner/accused on furnishing bond and subject to strict conditions including weekly reporting, restricted travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation.

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Principles – High Court reiterates that interference is permissible only when findings are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or when only one view (guilt) is possible – Double presumption of innocence applies – Trial court’s findings found sound and not perverse [Paras 16–20, 49–51].

FIR – Delay and Suspicious Registration – Material contradictions between FIR version, GD entry (Ex. Ka-26), testimony of informant (P.W.1) and I.O. (P.W.5) regarding where, when and how FIR was lodged – Delay in FIR reaching Magistrate (4 days) and Circle Officer (2 days) further strengthened suspicion – Finding of trial court that FIR timing doubtful upheld [Paras 22–26].

Eyewitness Testimony – Chance Witnesses – P.W.1 (wife) and P.W.2 (son) claimed to witness incident while returning from doctor – Their presence found improbable due to contradictions regarding timings, medical treatment, travel distance, and improbable conduct – Court affirms trial court’s conclusion that both were ‘chance witnesses’ whose presence was not naturally explained [Paras 27–33].

Witness Credibility – Major Contradictions – P.W.1 and P.W.2 contradict each other on: (i) who drove the Bolero, (ii) number of assailants inside vehicle, (iii) manner of attack, (iv) direction of road, (v) presence of mud/grass in mouth, (vi) location of body – Such contradictions strike at core of prosecution case – Trial court rightly held their evidence unreliable [Paras 34–44].

Medical Evidence vs Ocular Evidence – No Crush Injuries – Prosecution alleged Bolero ran over deceased 3–4 times breaking limbs – Postmortem (Ex. Ka-2) showed no crush injuries, no broken limbs; only multiple abrasions/contusions; internal injuries inconsistent with running over by heavy vehicle – Ocular version not corroborated by medical evidence – Creates serious doubt on prosecution story [Paras 45–48].

Two Views Possible – Acquittal Sustained – Trial court’s findings based on reasonable appreciation of evidence; appellate court cannot substitute merely because another view is possible – Appeal dismissed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused affirmed – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Findings consistent with evidence and established principles for appeal against acquittal [Paras 49–51].