Gratuity – Applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act to Zilla Parishad Employees – PG Act Held Applicable - Petitioners (Zilla Parishad, Washim) challenged orders of Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity under the PG Act to retired health workers – Petitioners contended employees were covered under Maharashtra Civil Services Rules and hence excluded under Section 2(e) of PG Act – Court held Zilla Parishad is a local self-government body and not part of Central or State Government – In absence of exemption under Section 5 and in light of overriding Section 14, PG Act applies – Dismissal of petitions upheld validity of Controlling Authority’s orders including interest component – Held: Zilla Parishad liable to pay gratuity under the PG Act, with 10% interest from date of application till deposit [Paras 8-19].

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery – Appeal Against Conviction - Circumstantial Evidence and Last Seen Theory – Conviction Confirmed - Appellants convicted under Sections 302 and 392 IPC for murdering their employer and robbing his belongings – Prosecution relied on 'last seen together' evidence, mobile phone data, recovery of gold chain from jeweler, and blood-stained clothing – Court found that circumstantial chain was complete and unbroken – Held: No explanation provided by accused consistent with innocence; prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 2–18].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Conviction  – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory and Recovery of Bloodstained Articles – Conviction Set Aside - Appellant was convicted for murder of his foster daughter based solely on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution relied on last seen theory, recovery of bloodstained pant, and alleged improper motive – Court held last seen theory not proved due to lack of corroborative witnesses and uncertain timeline – Ownership of pant not established – No conclusive proof of motive or sexual assault – Chain of circumstances incomplete and failing the test in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conviction unsustainable, appellant acquitted [Paras 14-24].

Bail – Jurisdiction of Magistrate – Offences under SC/ST Act and IPC Section 409 – Bail Order Set Aside - The learned Magistrate rejected remand of accused but also granted bail in offences triable by Sessions/Special Court including under SC/ST Act and Section 409 IPC – Held: Though rejection of remand was within discretion of Magistrate, granting bail was beyond jurisdiction – Victim not heard as required under Section 15A(3) SC/ST Act – High Court held Magistrate’s order granting bail without jurisdiction was legally unsustainable – Appeal partly allowed; remand rejection upheld, bail order set aside [Paras 6-13].

Taxation Law - Wealth Tax – Urban Land – Building Under Construction – Taxability Upheld - ITAT excluded respondent’s land under construction from wealth tax by relying on Rohini Hotels case – High Court held this reliance misplaced in light of Supreme Court’s later decision in Giridhar G. Yadalam v. CWT which reversed Rohini Hotels – Held: Land with partially constructed buildings does not qualify for exclusion under Section 2(ea); exemption applies only when building is fully constructed and approved – Appeals allowed, ITAT orders set aside [Paras 3–23].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Intimidation – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Sections 354, 354A, 506 IPC, alleging false implication by his niece-in-law – The Court noted that FIR disclosed specific acts of molestation and intimidation occurring over a sustained period – Held: Allegations, if taken at face value, prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offences – Mere absence of such claims in parallel proceedings or assertions of malafide cannot justify quashing at preliminary stage – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–13].

Quashing Proclamation Proceedings – Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Declaration of Proclaimed Person Quashed – The petitioner was declared proclaimed person in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act and consequent FIR under Section 174-A IPC was registered – Held: Trial Court erred in straightaway issuing proclamation without prior steps of summons or bailable warrants, and without recording satisfaction regarding absconding – Proclamation proceedings vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Impugned order and FIR quashed [Paras 1-3, 12].

Cognizance under Section 174-A IPC – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Prosecution Unsustainable – The Court held that offences under Section 174-A IPC are governed by the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. – Cognizance requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant and cannot be initiated by police report – Registration of FIR without a complaint violates mandatory procedural law – Proceedings under Section 174-A IPC quashed [Paras 7-10].

Mandatory Procedure under Law – Adherence to Article 21 – Due Process Violated – The Court emphasized adherence to fair procedure as integral to personal liberty under Article 21 – When law prescribes a manner for action, deviation renders subsequent proceedings void – Directing initiation of criminal action without following the statutorily prescribed complaint procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is illegal [Paras 11].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order declaring petitioner proclaimed person, consequential FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law, ensuring procedural compliance under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and Section 195 Cr.P.C. [Paras 14].

Civil Procedure – Caveat and Right to Hearing – Section 148-A CPC – Violation of Mandatory Notice Requirement – Ad interim injunction set aside - The Trial Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs without serving prior notice on the caveator (a trustee of the proforma defendant trust) – Held: The mandatory requirement of notice under Section 148-A(3) CPC was violated – A caveat, even if lodged by a trustee in personal capacity without specific authority, suffices for notice – The caveat squarely covered the subject matter of the suit, and urgency could not be invoked to bypass due process [Paras 23–34].

Trust Management – Section 92 CPC – Applicability Disputed – Dispute Concerns Academic Institute, Not Trust Per Se – Trial Court’s Jurisdiction Queried – The appellants argued that the core dispute was regarding the academic institution and not the trust’s administration – However, Court held it unnecessary to address this due to jurisdictional error from failure to serve caveat notice [Paras 8–9, 41].

Decision: Ad Interim Relief in Violation of Procedure – Order Without Jurisdiction – Appeal Allowed - Since ad interim relief was granted in breach of statutory caveat notice rights, the impugned order was held void for lack of jurisdiction – Appeal allowed without entering merits – Trial Court directed to reconsider the injunction application after hearing both sides [Paras 37–43].
 

Civil Law - Competing Wills – Registered vs. Unregistered – Suspicious Circumstances – Registered Will Upheld – Plaintiffs relied on registered Will dated 09.06.2000, proved through attesting witness and scribe's record – Defendant relied on unregistered Will dated 07.08.2004 – High Court held that propounder failed to explain suspicious circumstances including testator’s prior litigation with beneficiary and absence of mention of earlier Will – Registered Will stood duly proved; unregistered Will discarded [Paras 4–34].

Proof of Will – Attestation and Execution – Legal Requirement Satisfied – Will of 2000 held valid as one attesting witness deposed to its execution, contents explained to testator, and execution done in presence of both witnesses – Registration further bolstered its authenticity – Court found that requirement under Sections 63 of Succession Act and 68 of Evidence Act was met [Paras 11–21].

Suspicious Circumstances – Unexplained Presence of Beneficiary – Lack of Known Scribe – History of Litigation – Will Disbelieved – Will of 2004 was held invalid due to serious doubts: scribe’s identity unknown, both attesting witnesses knew beneficiary but not testator, and long-standing adversarial litigation between testator and beneficiary – No explanation for not registering subsequent Will, weakening its credibility [Paras 22–34].

Mutation Orders – No Evidentiary Value – Revenue Authority Findings Not Binding – Appellate Court wrongly relied on mutation sanction based on disputed Will – Court reiterated that mutation proceedings are administrative and cannot determine validity of testamentary documents [Para 35].

Admissions and Burden of Proof – No Binding Admission by Plaintiff – Pleading Suspicion Not Mandatory Where Apparent – Respondent’s claim that plaintiff admitted 2004 Will rejected as misreading – Even absent specific pleading, court may evaluate suspicious circumstances if they are facially evident and serious [Paras 36–42].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Trial Court’s decree restored – Appellate Court’s judgment set aside – Will dated 09.06.2000 accepted as genuine; suit decreed in favour of appellants – No costs awarded [Paras 43–44].