Labour Law – Gratuity – Limitation – Application filed after 2–3 years of retirement – Held: No limitation prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Rules cannot override statutory right – Rule 7(5) of the Central Rules clarifies that delayed claims are not invalid – Delay does not defeat the right to gratuity under a beneficial social welfare legislation [Paras 8–10].

Principal Employer – Liability for Gratuity – Contractual Employment – Petitioners argued workers were contractor’s employees – Court held contracts were a camouflage as workers served continuously for over 20 years despite changing contractors – Principal employer liable to pay gratuity under Section 21(4) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Right to recover from contractors preserved [Paras 13–16].

Wages – Definition – Gratuity Included – As per Section 2(vi)(d) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, gratuity payable on termination of employment is part of "wages" – Hence, principal employer’s statutory obligation includes gratuity as wage component under applicable labour laws [Paras 17–18].

Interest on Delayed Gratuity – Held: Under Section 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employer is liable to pay interest from date gratuity becomes payable (i.e., from date of retirement), not from date of application – Interest rightly awarded from date of superannuation till payment [Paras 21–22].

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Gratuity as Property – Gratuity is a vested right and recognized as property under Article 300A of the Constitution – Cannot be denied except by authority of law – Delay or contractual arrangement cannot justify withholding payment [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Orders of Controlling and Appellate Authorities upheld – Respondents entitled to withdraw deposited gratuity amounts and recover any deficit – Principal employer liable to pay and may recover from contractors where applicable.

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Plaintiff sought partition of properties belonging to deceased parents but failed to implead all legal heirs including five sisters – Held: Suit not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties in a claim based on intestate succession – All co-heirs must be before court in a partition suit [Paras 24-29]

Court Fees – Valuation of Suit – Plaintiff undervalued properties in amended plaint by reducing earlier declared valuation – Held: Suit improperly valued – Appropriate court fee not paid – Issue decided against plaintiff [Paras 31-36]

Succession – Will – Validity and Genuineness – Will dated 12.10.2001 executed by Smt. Krishna Wanti in favour of husband – One attesting witness (son) examined – No suspicious circumstances proved – Held: Will validly executed under Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Bequest to spouse not unnatural [Paras 37-57]

Probate – Will of Sh. Hans Raj Gulati – Objections rejected – Will dated 30.05.2003 registered and witnessed – Attesting witness and Sub-Registrar examined – Delay of 7 years in filing probate not fatal as right accrued in 2009 upon amendment of plaint – No proof of mental incapacity or alternative Will – Held: Will valid and genuine – Probate granted [Paras 58-111]

Limitation – Probate Petition – Right to apply accrues when necessity arises – Filing within 3 years of amendment to plaint found within limitation under Article 137 – Continuous right to apply upheld [Paras 80-85]

Evidence – Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of daughters in Will not suspicious – No evidence of coercion or fraud – Objectors failed to prove existence or contents of alleged torn Will – Hearsay inadmissible – No proof of alternate testament [Paras 86-103]

Relief – Partition Suit dismissed – Plaintiff found to have no share in properties – Probate petition allowed – Petitioners granted letters of administration upon compliance [Paras 112-117]

Decision: CS(OS) 2159/2002 dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and undervaluation – Plaintiff held to have no share in suit properties – TEST.CAS. 90/2014 allowed – Will dated 30.05.2003 of Hans Raj Gulati upheld – Petitioners entitled to probate and letters of administration subject to formalities – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Accused not named in FIR but arrested along with co-accused from whose possession 40 motorcycles were allegedly recovered – No videography of recovery conducted as required under Section 105 BNSS – Co-accused Shoeb and Owais granted bail on similar grounds – Held: Applicant entitled to bail on grounds of parity and lack of procedural compliance [Paras 3, 5-6]

Evidence – Search and Seizure – Non-Compliance with BNSS – Recovery of motorcycles not recorded via audio-video means as mandated under Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of UP BNSS Rules, 2024 – No independent witnesses or uploading on E-Sakshya portal – Held: Creates serious doubt on prosecution version – Non-compliance may benefit accused at bail and trial stages [Paras 12-13, 16, 18]

Police Conduct – Procedural Safeguards – Lack of SOP – Despite clear statutory mandate, no SOP issued by DGP under Rule 18(5) of UP Rules – Court directs DGP to issue detailed SOP for mandatory video recording during seizure – Non-compliance may lead to disciplinary action against erring officers [Paras 17, 19]

Judicial Directions – Systemic Compliance – Registrar (Compliance) directed to forward copy of judgment to DGP, U.P., for issuance of SOP and ensuring compliance with Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 UP Rules – Objective is to prevent false implication and ensure fair investigation [Paras 19-20]

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on furnishing personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation in trial and prevent misuse of bail – Court emphasizes mandatory procedural compliance in future seizures.

Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Offences – Serious Allegations of Sexual and Physical Cruelty – Application under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging dowry harassment, physical assault, sexual abuse including unnatural sex and attempted burning with cigarettes – Allegations spanning over two years of matrimonial relationship – Held: Case not a simple matrimonial dispute but involves grave and serious allegations warranting custodial interrogation [Paras 18–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR – Explanation Acceptable in Sexual Offences – FIR lodged after considerable delay – Explanation that complainant was traumatised, socially stigmatized and earlier attempts to lodge FIR were refused by police – Held: Delay in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual abuse and matrimonial cruelty is not fatal and does not discredit the prosecution case at the bail stage [Paras 12–13].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Recovery of Electronic and Physical Evidence – Allegations that accused possessed intimate photographs, hard disks, jewellery (streedhan), personal documents and electronic devices belonging to complainant – Held: Custodial interrogation necessary to recover crucial evidence, uncover full extent of offence and prevent tampering or misuse of sensitive material [Paras 14, 27–30].

Anticipatory Bail – WhatsApp Chats and Electronic Evidence – Prima Facie Assessment – WhatsApp communications containing abusive language, threats and intimidation relied upon by prosecution – Report under Section 65-B Evidence Act collected during investigation certifying genuineness of electronic evidence – Held: At anticipatory bail stage, Court can prima facie look into electronic material to assess gravity and necessity of custodial interrogation without conducting a mini-trial [Paras 15, 18].

Anticipatory Bail – Marital Consent – Bodily Autonomy of Spouse – Court observed that marriage does not imply automatic or perpetual sexual consent – Non-consensual and unnatural sexual acts within marriage cause physical and mental trauma and constitute grave offences – Held: Allegations of sexual assault within marriage cannot be trivialized at the stage of anticipatory bail [Paras 19–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Personal Liberty and Societal Interest – While personal liberty is important, Court must consider seriousness of offence, societal impact, likelihood of repetition and need for fair investigation – No special or compelling circumstances shown to justify pre-arrest protection – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at initial stage likely to hamper investigation [Paras 21–29].

Decision – Application rejected – Anticipatory bail declined – Trial court order upheld – Clarified that observations confined to bail stage and shall not prejudice regular bail or trial on merits [Paras 30–31].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope at Preliminary Stage – Accused seeking discharge contending that he was neither Director nor shareholder of accused company – Magistrate relied on Registrar of Companies records showing petitioner as Director – At discharge stage, court required to see prima facie material and not conduct a roving enquiry – Held: Existence of documentary material showing petitioner as Director sufficient to proceed with trial [Paras 5–6].

Company Offences – Director’s Liability – Economic Offences – Collection of deposits without licence – CBCID final report alleging offences under IPC, RBI Act and Kerala Chitties Act – Directors responsible for management as per Articles of Association – Held: When records show accused as Director during relevant period, criminal liability cannot be ruled out at threshold [Paras 2, 5].

Effect of Writ Proceedings – Direction to Registrar of Companies – Enquiry into Directorship – Mere direction by High Court to conduct enquiry and rectify records, if mistake found – No material produced to show that enquiry concluded in favour of accused – Held: Pendency or existence of such direction does not automatically entitle accused to discharge [Para 6].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Order Refusing Discharge – Revisional court will not interfere unless order suffers from illegality or perversity – Magistrate’s order based on records and relevant considerations – Held: No ground made out for interference under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 5–6].

Liberty Reserved – Quashing Proceedings – Accused permitted to approach High Court for quashing if subsequent enquiry by Registrar of Companies establishes that his name was wrongly shown as Director during period of offence [Final Para].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order refusing discharge upheld – Liberty reserved to seek quashment on proof of favourable outcome of Registrar of Companies enquiry.

Civil Writ - Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Revision Dismissed for Non-Appearance – Impugned order passed by Additional Commissioner dismissing OSS Case without hearing the petitioner – Petitioner contended absence of notice and denial of opportunity – Held: Order passed without hearing violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained [Paras 3-4].

Judicial Duty – Disposal on Merits – Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings – Court reiterated that a matter should ordinarily be decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties – Emphasised that courts should not permit technicalities to defeat substantial justice [Paras 4-5].

Substantial Justice – Technicalities – Preference – When technical considerations are pitted against substantial justice, the latter must prevail – Dismissal of revision without hearing petitioner held contrary to settled principles of law [Para 5].

Remand – Fresh Adjudication – Time-bound Disposal – Impugned order dated 21.06.2024 quashed – OSS Case No.630 of 2022 remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court-IV, Bhubaneswar for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to both parties – Direction to dispose of the revision within three months from petitioner’s appearance [Paras 6-9].

Direction to Parties – Appearance Before Authority – Petitioner directed to appear before the Revisional Authority on 12.01.2026 and file certified copy of the judgment for further proceedings [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

Rent Law – SCC Eviction Decree – Ex-Parte Proceeding – Substitution of Legal Representatives – No Fresh Summons Required – Under Order XXII Rule 4(4) CPC, where a suit is already proceeding ex-parte against the original defendant and the defendant dies, the court is not obliged to substitute the legal representatives and the decree may be passed against the original defendant notwithstanding death – In the present case, the original tenant Ram Bharose Verma did not appear despite service of summons and the suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 10.12.2012 – He died on 27.01.2013 – Notices on the substitution application were served by refusal and heirs were substituted – Held: Since the suit was already proceeding ex-parte, there was no necessity of issuing fresh summons to the substituted heirs after substitution – Ex-parte judgment and decree dated 16.09.2013 is not a nullity for non-issuance of fresh summons to substituted heirs [Paras 15–17].

Executing Court – Cannot Go Behind the Decree – Section 47 CPC – Objections Regarding Validity of Summons and Power of Attorney – Held: The executing court cannot go behind the decree and examine facts recorded or satisfaction recorded by the trial court in the ex-parte judgment or in orders passed during the suit – Whether summons were properly served on the original defendant was recorded in the order dated 10.12.2012 and the same was not challenged by way of revision – The plea regarding suit being filed through power of attorney holder and notice being given by the landlord personally are matters which go behind the decree and cannot be examined under Section 47 CPC [Paras 9, 25].

Tenancy – Death of Original Tenant – Heirs as Joint Tenants – Decree Binding on All – Section 3(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 – Upon death of tenant in respect of a residential building, only such heirs as normally resided with him at the time of death succeed as tenants – Held: There was no averment in the petition that petitioner No. 2 was normally residing with the deceased original tenant Ram Bharose Verma at the time of his death and, therefore, it is not made out that she became a tenant entitled to be separately substituted – Further, the heirs of a deceased tenant inherit as joint tenants and not as tenants-in-common and notice to one is sufficient notice to all – Any defect in service of notice on one of the joint tenants would not make a decree passed against all joint tenants a nullity when notices were served on the other joint tenants [Paras 19–24].

Typographical Error in Name – Section 152 CPC – Decree Not Rendered Nullity – The name of petitioner No. 2 was mentioned as "Heena Verma" in the substitution application whereas her name is "Hema Verma" – The trial court held this to be a typographical error and corrected the same under Section 152 CPC – Held: A mere error in spelling of the name does not affect the validity of the decree when notices were duly served on the heirs of the deceased tenant and they had full knowledge of the proceedings [Paras 18, 12].

Impleadment of Courts as Opposite Parties – Deprecated Practice – The petitioners had impleaded the Additional District Judge-XII and the Judge Small Causes Court as opposite parties – Held: The practice of impleading courts as opposite parties has been deprecated by the Supreme Court – Courts neither defend their orders before superior courts nor do they contest proceedings – Records can be called for without impleading the court or presiding officer as a party [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Petition dismissed at admission stage.

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Suit filed on 31st July 2021, registered on 18th December 2021 – High Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory on 1st October 2021 in Deepak Raheja – Held: Since suit was filed prior to that date, plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A – Filing of suit is relevant date for determining compliance, not registration [Paras 8, 22(a)-(b), 31].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No Cause of Action – Plaint alleges plaintiffs were beneficiaries under Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements – Defendant no. 1 (SBI) was account bank and allegedly withheld funds due to plaintiffs – Suit also based on representations made in Joint Lenders Forum meetings – Held: Cause of action adequately pleaded; whether it is illusory or defective is a matter for trial – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) not warranted [Paras 23–29].

Limitation – Recovery Suit – Article 113 of Limitation Act – Plaintiffs claim right to sue accrued only upon discovery of facts on 21st May 2019 via NCLT proceedings – Suit filed on 31st July 2021 – Held: Cause of action within limitation as pleaded; limitation involves mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial stage [Paras 30, 22(k), 29].

Mediation – Validity of Private Mediation – Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act read with 2018 Rules – Pre-litigation mediation attempted privately and failed – Held: Although private mediation does not fulfil mandatory requirement under Section 12-A, since suit was filed before Section 12-A was declared mandatory, rejection not warranted on this ground [Paras 5(a)-(b), 22(c), 31].

Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Court discourages frivolous applications for rejection of plaint that delay commercial suits – Reiterates power to reject plaint must be used sparingly and only when clear grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied [Para 32].

Decision: Application rejected – None of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC satisfied – Suit to proceed to trial [Para 33].