Partnership – Retirement of Partners – Firm Owning Immovable Property – Mere retirement deed without registered release of interest in immovable properties does not divest outgoing partner of title – In absence of registered instrument as mandated under Section 17(1) of Registration Act and proper stamp duty, no effective vesting of title in continuing partners – Firm does not cease to exist without lawful dissolution or registered relinquishment [Paras 12–14, 19, 22].

Registration of Firm – Use of Identical Name – Defendants, after earlier retirement and express conduct disclaiming interest, registered new firm in identical name – Held: Having relinquished rights by conduct and representation, defendants not entitled to register firm in same name – Partnership deed dated 13.10.2016 declared null and void – Declaratory relief rightly granted by trial Court [Paras 17, 19].

Co-ownership – Injunction Against Co-owner – Property standing in name of partnership firm where no valid dissolution or registered relinquishment – All partners remain co-owners – No injunction can be granted against co-owner in absence of clear exclusive possession – Plaintiffs failed to establish exclusive possession – Permanent injunction set aside [Paras 24–26].

Possession – Evidence – Letter to Bank (Ex.B7) and endorsement acknowledging receipt of keys after settlement of loan indicated defendants’ physical possession – Trial Court erred in not considering material exhibits – Plaintiffs not entitled to injunction [Paras 24, 26].

Settlement of Accounts – Outgoing Partner’s Rights – In absence of lawful settlement, outgoing partner entitled under Section 37 of Partnership Act to share of profits or interest attributable to use of his share – Mode of settlement under Section 48 not followed – Parties required to seek comprehensive adjudication of rights [Paras 25, 21–22].

Relief – Comprehensive Suit Required – Core issue of validity of retirements, dissolution and settlement of accounts not addressed by parties – Appropriate remedy is comprehensive suit for declaration/dissolution and partition – Peripheral litigation inadequate to resolve dispute [Paras 19, 21–22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of permanent injunction set aside – Declaration that partnership deed dated 13.10.2016 registered as No.821 of 2016 is null and void sustained – Parties at liberty to approach competent Civil Court for comprehensive reliefs – No order as to costs – Connected CMPs closed.

Pension – Retired Contract Employees – Kerala Livestock Development Board – Claim based on retrospective regularisation – Government Order granting pension subject to refund of employer’s EPF contribution – Condition not fulfilled – Pension claim rejected – Petitioners initially engaged as contract Inseminators under Indo Swiss Project and later regularised – Government Order (Ext.P2) granted pension treating them as Government employees subject to refund of employer’s EPF contribution – Said condition admittedly not complied with – Held: Pension cannot be granted in absence of fulfilment of mandatory condition [Paras 31–33, 37].

Finality of Litigation – Binding nature of Division Bench judgment – Failure to comply with conditional directions – Subsequent writ petition barred – Division Bench in W.A. No.418/2015 directed grant of pension only if employer’s EPF contribution was remitted within one month – EPFO failed to remit contribution – SLP dismissed by Supreme Court – Held: Issue stands concluded and cannot be reopened through subsequent writ petition [Paras 34, 38, 42].

Cabinet Decision – Enforceability – Requirement of formal Government Order – Article 166 of Constitution – No vested right without executive order – Petitioners relied on Cabinet decision (Ext.P8) to restore pension on condition of refund – No Government Order issued pursuant to Cabinet decision – Held: Cabinet decision by itself does not create enforceable right unless expressed in name of Governor as required under Article 166 [Paras 41–42].

Rules of Business – Scope – Ministerial or Cabinet decision not amounting to State action – Reliance on Bachhittar Singh case – Business of State must be carried out in accordance with constitutional formality – Cabinet noting or internal decision not sufficient – Held: Until decision is formally communicated as Government Order, it does not become action of the State [Paras 41].

Employees’ Provident Fund – Employer’s contribution – Statutory nature – Refund not permissible through voluntary payment by employees – Scheme contemplates refund only from EPFO and not by employees directly – Petitioners’ willingness to refund contribution personally held irrelevant – Held: Statutory contribution under EPF Act cannot be substituted by voluntary repayment [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to government pension – Ext.P2 and Ext.P8 cannot be enforced – Earlier Division Bench judgment binding and conclusive.

Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Excess Stock of Paddy – Conviction Set Aside – Prosecution alleged storage of excess 33.50 quintals of paddy by the appellant in violation of Para 17 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 – Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act – On appeal, High Court found serious doubts regarding the actual seizure and weighment of alleged excess stock – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 11–14].

Seizure of Contraband – Credibility of Seizure Witnesses – Both independent seizure witnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) categorically stated that they signed blank papers at the instance of the Investigating Officer and did not witness actual seizure or weighment of paddy – Witnesses not examined by Investigating Officer during investigation – Such evidence rendered seizure doubtful and unreliable [Paras 6–7, 11–12].

Evidence – Weighment of Seized Paddy – Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Prosecution failed to examine any person who actually weighed the paddy – Weighment chart did not disclose who conducted the weighment – No evidence as to source of weighing machine – In a case alleging excess stock, absence of proof of proper weighment held to be fatal to prosecution case [Paras 8, 10–12].

Investigation – Procedural Lapses – Non-recording of General Diary Entry – Investigating Officer failed to record GD entry regarding departure for raid and return – Could not disclose jeep number or driver’s name – When raid itself was under challenge, such lapses created serious doubt about prosecution version – Held: Though not always fatal, in present facts such lapses assumed significance [Paras 8, 12].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Time and Manner of Seizure – Prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent versions regarding time of preparation of seizure list and presence of witnesses – Evidence showed seizure list was possibly not prepared at the spot – Prosecution failed to reconcile material inconsistencies – Doubt as to genuineness of seizure sustained [Paras 6, 8, 12].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Standard of Proof – Trial Court itself observed scope of doubt regarding seizure of 75 quintals of paddy but still convicted appellant on ground of improper maintenance of stock register – Held: Once reasonable doubt exists, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not on surmises or conjectures [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.1993 passed by the Special Court (E.C.), Suri in Special Case No. 33 of 1992 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act – Appreciation recorded for assistance of Amicus Curiae [Paras 14–15].

Deemed Conveyance – MOFA Section 11 – Article 227 – Scope of writ/supervisory jurisdiction – Challenge to deemed conveyance order/certificate, unilateral deemed conveyance deed, corrigendum/supplementary agreement and mutation on grounds of fraud, want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice – Held: Competent Authority’s jurisdiction under Section 11 is limited and summary to enforce statutory obligation of conveyance in terms of Section 4 agreements – Disputes as to title, extent, inclusion of structures and development rights are for civil court – Petition dismissed with liberty to file civil suit – All questions kept open [Paras 12-20, 28-31].

MOFA Section 11 Proceedings – Nature of jurisdiction – Competent Authority not a civil court – Cannot adjudicate complicated title disputes – Order of deemed conveyance transfers only such right, title and interest as promoter/landholder actually possesses – Does not enlarge title – Civil court not bound by Competent Authority’s observations – Remedy for landowner/legal heirs alleging excess conveyance is substantive civil suit for declaration/partition/cancellation/rectification [Paras 13, 15-19, 28].

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed questions of fact – Extent of land conveyed and inclusion of structures – Allegation that agreements refer to different CTS number/area and that chawl/temple/ancestral structures and undivided co-ownership rights were included – Held: Issues are mixed questions of fact and law requiring examination of title documents, revenue records, sanctioned plans and evidence – Not amenable to adjudication under Article 227 [Paras 14, 17-19].

Natural Justice – Service of notice – Test of “real prejudice” – Supreme Court principles in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh – Mere breach not sufficient – Court must see whether actual prejudice caused and whether outcome would differ – Held: Estate of deceased owner represented before Competent Authority – one legal representative participated – several heirs gave no objection – proceedings are summary/document-based – petitioner failed to show what additional material would change statutory analysis – no real prejudice demonstrated – no interference [Paras 20-27].

Relief – Relegation to civil remedy – Where challenge to deemed conveyance essentially concerns title/quantum/structures and alleged overreach – Proper remedy is civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition (if advised), cancellation/rectification of conveyance and consequential relief – Writ petition dismissed – no costs – all questions kept open [Paras 28-31].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to civil suit remedy – All questions kept open – No order as to costs [Paras 29-31].

Arbitration – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Perversity and Patent Illegality – Court reiterates that it does not sit as an appellate authority over arbitral awards – Reappreciation of evidence impermissible – Interference justified only where findings are based on no evidence, ignore vital evidence, or are so irrational that no fair-minded person would arrive at them – Possible and plausible view of arbitrator must be respected [Paras 30–35].

Public Works Contract – Delay in Execution – Attribution of Delay – Arbitral Tribunal undertook detailed factual inquiry by dividing delay into fifteen sub-heads including bhoomi poojan, approvals, permissions, land availability, drawings, and coordination between authorities – Tribunal’s findings holding Municipal Corporation solely responsible for delay found to be supported by documentary evidence and admissions in cross-examination – No perversity or ignorance of vital evidence established [Paras 36–43].

Admissions in Evidence – Evidentiary Value – Admissions by Municipal Corporation’s witnesses in cross-examination constitute best evidence – Once delay attributable to employer admitted, employer cannot rely merely on internal correspondence alleging contractor delay – Tribunal entitled to rely on such admissions [Paras 42–43].

Penalties in Works Contract – Delay as Foundation – Penalties imposed solely on ground of delay – Once contractor exonerated from delay, penalty orders automatically rendered unsustainable – Tribunal justified in setting aside penalty orders – No independent basis for penalties survives [Para 44].

Termination of Contract – Illegality – Termination effected prior to expiry of contract period solely on allegation of delay – Delay held not attributable to contractor – Termination therefore illegal and unjustified – Tribunal’s finding upheld [Para 45].

Blacklisting – Works Contract – Sub-Contracting – Blacklisting based inter alia on alleged sub-contracting and delay – Clause prohibiting sub-contracting of “whole work” does not bar partial sub-contracting – Large infrastructure contracts permit limited sub-contracting – Delay allegation found incorrect – Blacklisting order rightly set aside [Paras 46–47].

Running Account Bills – Certification of Work – Final RA Bill partly certified by Project Management Consultant and Municipal Corporation – Tribunal correctly awarded only certified amount and rejected excess claim – Withholding certified amount by adjusting penalties held illegal once penalties set aside – No perversity in awarding certified dues [Paras 48–52].

Taxes – Local Body Tax (LBT) – Pre-bid clarification limiting liability of LBT to materials procured within municipal limits – Contractor procured materials outside limits – Tribunal’s view allowing refund of deducted LBT held plausible and within contractual interpretation [Para 53].

Damages – Loss of Profit vs. Loss of Profitability – Distinction reiterated – Loss of profit arises from wrongful termination and does not require proof of actual loss – Loss of profitability due to prolongation requires strict evidence – Tribunal rightly awarded damages for loss of profit on unexecuted work upon finding termination illegal [Paras 54–61].

Damages – Quantum – Conservative Approach – Tribunal awarded 10% of balance work based on tender estimate and not actual contract value – Effective compensation only about 5.5% of unexecuted work – Award held extremely conservative and reasonable – No ground for interference under Section 34 [Paras 62–63].

Decision: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 444 of 2024 dismissed – Challenge by Municipal Corporation rejected – Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 252 of 2024 dismissed as not pressed – Arbitral Award dated 18 June 2020 upheld in entirety – Directions issued for release/encashment of bank guarantees, stayed for eight weeks post-judgment [Paras 64–67].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Statutory Notice – Presumption of Service – General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 27 – Complaint dismissed by JMFC as premature for non-production of track report of registered notice – Revisional Court affirmed dismissal holding presumption of service arises only after 30 days from dispatch – High Court finds both courts erred – Held: Once a statutory notice is properly addressed, prepaid and dispatched by registered post, presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act arises; non-production of track report or acknowledgment due card is not a ground to dismiss the complaint at the threshold; actual service is a matter of evidence to be examined at trial – Courts below set aside – Complaint restored [Paras 8–18].

Presumption of Service – Statutory Notice – Registered Post – Section 27, General Clauses Act, 1897 – Misinterpretation of Supreme Court Precedent – Revisional Court read Ajeet Seeds Ltd. and C.C. Alavi Haji as mandating a fixed 30-day period for presumption of service – Held: Neither judgment lays down any such rigid rule; presumption operates on the basis of ordinary course of postal business which depends on distance and mode of dispatch – High Court frames guidelines for computing presumed date of service based on geographical proximity [Paras 10–12].

Guidelines – Presumption of Service of Statutory Notice – Section 138 NI Act read with Section 27 General Clauses Act – For notices sent within the same city or district, service may ordinarily be presumed within 3 to 5 days from dispatch – For notices to another district within the same State, 5 to 7 days – For notices to another State, 7 to 10 days – Additional time permissible for remote or rural addresses – Presumption is rebuttable; accused may lead evidence to show notice was not received; complaint shall not be rejected at threshold on account of absence of track report [Para 13].

Application to Facts – COVID-19 Pandemic – Inability to Obtain Track Report – Both parties residents of Satna; notice dispatched on 12.08.2020 within the same city – Service presumed on or about 15.08.2020 – 15-day statutory period expired thereafter – Complaint filed on 01.09.2020 held to be within time and not premature – Non-production of track report during pandemic does not defeat the complaint [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders of JMFC dated 01.07.2022 and Sessions Court dated 08.02.2023 set aside – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act restored to its original number – JMFC, Satna directed to proceed on merits – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Accused Nos.1 to 3 convicted under Sections 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC – Deceased murdered to avoid repayment of loan of Rs.2 lakh – Prosecution case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen together, recovery of stolen articles, extra-judicial confession and conduct of accused – Trial Court conviction affirmed [Paras 12, 39–42, 75–76].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Principles reiterated – Prosecution must prove that circumstances are fully established and consistent only with guilt of accused – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision distinguishing “may be proved” and “must be proved” – Held: Chain of circumstances complete and unbroken, pointing unerringly to guilt of accused [Paras 39–42].

Homicidal Death – Medical and Ocular Evidence – Dead body exhumed from forest area – Multiple stab and crush injuries found on neck, head and skull – Medical evidence corroborating eyewitness and inquest testimony – Held: Death of deceased proved to be homicidal [Paras 43–47].

Motive – Financial Dispute – Evidence showing accused borrowed Rs.2 lakh from deceased and failed to repay – Deceased repeatedly demanded repayment – Accused hatched plan to eliminate deceased to avoid repayment – Motive established through testimony of wife and relatives of deceased [Paras 48–49].

Last Seen Theory – Accused and Deceased Seen Together – Evidence of dhaba staff, relatives and villagers showing deceased last seen in company of accused travelling towards place of incident – Proximity of time and place established – Accused failed to explain separation from deceased – Adverse inference drawn – Last seen circumstance proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 50–57].

Recovery of Stolen Articles – Section 27 Evidence Act – Gold chain, rings, Titan watch, mobile phone and clothes of deceased recovered at instance of accused from their houses – Recoveries proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer – Discovery of facts within special knowledge of accused – Recovery held valid and reliable [Paras 58–65].

Identification of Property – Wife of deceased identified recovered gold ornaments, watch and mobile phone as belonging to deceased – Ownership and connection of recovered articles with crime established [Para 66].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Accused made voluntary confession before village elder/Sarpanch – Confession corroborated by other circumstantial evidence – Principles governing extra-judicial confession applied – Confession found reliable and admissible [Paras 67–71].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Conduct of Accused – Facts relating to murder and possession of deceased’s belongings within exclusive knowledge of accused – Failure of accused to offer any explanation – Such failure providing additional link in chain of circumstances [Paras 72–74].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 06/02/2018 and 08/02/2018 confirmed – Accused held guilty of offences under Sections 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 75–76, Order].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Standard of Proof – Conviction recorded by Trial Court under Sections 364 and 302/34 IPC based entirely on circumstantial evidence – No direct eye-witness to kidnapping or murder – High Court reiterated settled principle that each incriminating circumstance must be fully proved and circumstances cumulatively must form a complete chain unerringly pointing to guilt of accused – Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof – Prosecution failed to elevate case from “may be true” to “must be true” – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23–25, 29].

Last Seen Theory – Evidentiary Value – Requirement of Proximity of Time and Place – Deceased last seen with accused on 07.02.1992 at about 6:00 p.m. at Delhi Railway Station – Dead body recovered near railway track at Ballabhgarh on 09.02.1992 at around noon – Medical evidence indicated death could have occurred any time on 09.02.1992 – Significant time gap between last-seen circumstance and death – Held: Last seen theory applicable only when time gap is so small that possibility of third-party intervention is excluded – Long gap rendered last-seen evidence unreliable – Conviction cannot rest solely on such weak evidence [Paras 26–29].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Possibility of Accidental Death – Post-mortem doctor opined that injuries could have been caused by fall from a moving train – Possibility of railway accident not ruled out – Medical evidence did not conclusively support homicidal death attributable to accused – Held: Where medical evidence creates reasonable doubt, benefit must go to accused [Paras 15, 25(vii)].

Motive – Proof of Motive – Inconsistencies in Prosecution Case – Alleged motive of Rs.7,500/- paid by deceased to accused for securing employment – Contradictory statements regarding amount (Rs.7,000/- vs Rs.7,500/-) – No documentary proof of payment – Accused themselves labourers – Held: Motive not proved convincingly and incapable of strengthening prosecution case in absence of other reliable circumstances [Paras 8(iii), 25(vi)].

Delay in Lodging Missing Report / FIR – Effect on Prosecution Case – Deceased allegedly taken on 07.02.1992 – Missing report lodged only on 12.02.1992 – No satisfactory explanation for delay despite family allegedly knowing who took deceased – Delay weakened prosecution version and cast serious doubt on veracity of allegations [Paras 8(i), 25(ii)].

Handwriting Evidence – Parcha Allegedly Written by Accused – Proof Deficient – Slip allegedly written by accused relied upon by prosecution – No expert opinion or reliable proof establishing handwriting of accused – Witness testimony shaky and recorded after long delay – Held: Alleged parcha could not be treated as incriminating circumstance [Paras 8(ii), 25(i)].

Benefit of Doubt – Accused Entitled Where Two Views Possible – Evidence on record permitted hypothesis consistent with innocence of accused – Possibility of accidental death or third-party involvement not ruled out – Held: In cases of circumstantial evidence, where two views are possible, one favouring accused must be adopted – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 23, 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364 and 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants Anoop Singh and Ram Kumar acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

Land Ceiling – Re-determination of Surplus Land – Transitory Provisions under U.P. Amending Acts of 1973 and 1976 – Fresh proceedings under Section 10(2) after statutory amendments held valid – Earlier discharge of notice in 1964 not operating as res judicata – Clubbing of wife’s land upheld – Failure to exercise statutory choice under Section 12-A – Writ petition dismissed.

Ceiling on Land Holdings – Re-determination of Surplus Land – Jurisdiction of Authorities – Notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 issued in 1962 was discharged in 1964 – Subsequent notice issued on 15.05.1976 pursuant to statutory amendments introduced by U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 – Held: Amendments brought a complete change in the scheme of the Act and mandated compulsory re-determination of surplus land declared prior to 10.10.1975 – Fresh proceedings initiated after amendment were within jurisdiction and not barred by earlier determination [Paras 4–5, 35–36, 69–71].

Transitory Provisions – Section 19 of U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973 – Limited Scope – Section 19(2) applies only to proceedings under Section 14 and Chapters III and IV of the Principal Act which were pending at the commencement of the Amending Act – Does not apply to proceedings relating to determination of surplus land which had already concluded – Held: Petitioner not entitled to continuation of proceedings under unamended Act of 1960 [Paras 30–34, 68].

U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 – Section 31(3) – Mandatory Re-determination – Legislature intended re-determination of all surplus land orders passed prior to 10.10.1975 within two years – Expression “may” in Section 31(3) held mandatory in nature – Notice dated 15.05.1976 issued in furtherance of statutory mandate – Proceedings valid and lawful [Paras 35, 50–51, 69].

Res Judicata – Section 38-B – Bar Excluded – Section 38-B expressly excludes application of res judicata in ceiling proceedings – Earlier findings or decisions rendered prior to commencement of Section 38-B cannot bar retrial or re-determination under amended law – Discharge of notice in 1964 did not preclude fresh determination [Paras 36, 61, 69–71].

Section 13-A – Rectification vs Fresh Proceedings – Power under Section 13-A confined to correction of mistakes apparent on the face of record within prescribed limitation – Cannot be invoked to invalidate fresh proceedings initiated under Section 10(2) after statutory amendments – Reliance on Devendra Nath Singh v. Civil Judge, Basti held misconceived [Paras 52–55].

Family – Clubbing of Wife’s Land – Sections 3(7) and 3(17) – Wife included in “family” of tenure-holder unless judicially separated as on relevant date – Woman whose husband is tenure-holder cannot be treated as independent tenure-holder – Land held by wife liable to be clubbed with land of husband for ceiling computation – Clubbing upheld [Paras 72–77].

Finality of Intermediate Orders – Waiver of Objections – Finding regarding clubbing of wife’s land attained finality in Appeal No. 16/1978 – Appellate orders dated 20.03.1979 and 16.09.1983 not challenged – Scope of remand confined only to irrigation status of specified plots and exercise of choice – Petitioner precluded from reopening settled issues [Paras 78–79].

Choice under Section 12-A – Vague and Conditional Exercise – Despite repeated opportunities, petitioner failed to furnish a clear and unconditional choice of land to be retained – Choice linked to pending exchange proceedings under Section 161 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act held irrelevant – Rejection of choice upheld [Paras 9, 14–15, 81–83].

Delay and Abuse of Process – Amendment after Two Decades – Writ petition filed in 1993 – Substantial amendment allowed in 2023 introducing new grounds not raised before ceiling authorities – Held: Belated attempt to reopen settled issues impermissible and aimed at prolonging litigation [Paras 16, 40, 83–84].

Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 – Findings of fact by ceiling authorities based on statutory interpretation and evidence – No manifest error or perversity shown – High Court declined to re-appreciate factual determinations [Paras 80–85].

Decision Writ Petition dismissed – Orders dated 27.06.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority and 11.06.1993 passed by the Appellate Authority affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 85–86].