Review – Scope and Maintainability – Non-consideration of Relief Clauses – Review application filed against judgment dated 03.08.2023 on the ground that relief clauses (f) and (h) though noticed were not adjudicated – Held, review is maintainable where material reliefs have escaped consideration resulting in miscarriage of justice – Review jurisdiction can be exercised to correct inadvertent omission of Court [Paras 19–20].

Absorption of Surplus Employees – Interpretation of Rule 3(1) of 2011 Rules – U.P. Absorption of Surplus Employees of Uptron India Ltd. in Government Service Rules, 2011 framed as a rehabilitative and beneficial scheme – Rule 3(1) gives overriding effect over existing service rules to the extent of inconsistency – Government Order dated 20.12.2011 issued under Rule 3(1) governs manner and conditions of absorption [Paras 21–23].

Government Order dated 20.12.2011 – Meaning of “Treating as Working in the Department” – Expression “उस विभाग में कार्यरत मानते हुए समायोजित करने के लिए” cannot be read narrowly – Absorption requires meaningful integration of employees into absorbing department – Beneficial legislation to receive purposive and liberal interpretation [Paras 23–25].

Absorption – Concept and Legal Effect – Upon absorption, employee becomes part and parcel of absorbing department subject to statutory conditions – Absorption distinct from regularisation – Service rendered prior to absorption by way of regular employment and adjustment against sanctioned posts cannot be ignored for pay fixation unless expressly excluded [Paras 25–26].

Pay Fixation and Consequential Service Benefits – Regular service rendered in Uptron India Ltd. and service rendered by way of adjustment in U.P. Civil Secretariat prior to absorption required to be considered for fixation and re-fixation of pay under Government Order dated 20.12.2011 – Reliefs relate to pay protection and consequential service benefits, not automatic grant of pension [Paras 26–27, 30–31].

Pensionary Benefits – Distinction Maintained – Claim for counting past service for pension governed strictly by statutory rules – Judgment clarifies that pensionary benefits, if any, shall be governed by applicable statutory provisions and binding precedents – No automatic conversion of non-pensionable service into pensionable service [Paras 27, 31(iii)].

Discrimination – Articles 14 and 16 – Petitioners alleged discrimination vis-à-vis similarly situated Uptron employees absorbed earlier with protection of last pay drawn – No rational basis shown by State for differential treatment under same policy – Held, absence of intelligible differentia violates Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 28–29].

Distinguishing Precedents Relied Upon by State – Full Bench judgment in Anukul Prakash confined to pensionary benefits – Does not bar consideration of past service for pay fixation – Decisions in Pooran Singh Manral and S.C. Chandra held inapplicable on facts and statutory framework [Paras 27(i)–(iii)].

Decision – Review allowed – Judgment dated 03.08.2023 modified – Directions issued for re-fixation of pay by considering prior regular service and service rendered by adjustment – Consequential service benefits to be extended within three months – No order as to costs [Paras 31–32].

Service Law – Selection Process – Fair Price Shop Dealer – Allocation of Marks for Interview – Judicial Restraint on Finalisation of Selection – Non-est Selection – Notification issued inviting applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer providing 50 marks for written test and 50 marks for oral interview – Appellant secured full marks in written test but was unsuccessful in interview – Selection challenged on ground of excessive weightage to interview and violation of constitutional principles – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition applying doctrine of estoppel on ground that appellant participated in selection process – Held: Though ordinarily a candidate who participates in a selection process is estopped from challenging it, such principle cannot apply where the selection itself is conducted in violation of binding judicial directions – Selection continued and finalised despite specific direction in W.P. No.3553 of 2012 & batch restraining finalisation till revision of guidelines – Entire selection process rendered non-est in law – Court cannot uphold an appointment made in defiance of directions issued by a constitutional court – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Fresh selection directed in accordance with revised criteria pursuant to judgment in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch quashing G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2011 – Appeal allowed [Paras 12–14].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Estoppel – Participation in Selection Process – Exception – Participation in selection ordinarily bars subsequent challenge – However, estoppel has no application where selection is vitiated by illegality and conducted contrary to express judicial आदेश – Rule of estoppel cannot legitimise an act that is void in law [Paras 12–13].

Constitutional Law – Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Court Directions – Authorities bound to comply with interim and final directions issued by High Court – Any action taken in contravention thereof is void and unenforceable – Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sustain such actions [Paras 9, 13].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 19.06.2014 in W.P. No.6463 of 2012 set aside – Respondents directed to initiate fresh selection process by fixing interview marks in accordance with criteria laid down pursuant to judgment dated 04.04.2013 in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch – No costs – Connected miscellaneous applications closed.

Arbitration – Section 34 – Inordinate Delay in Pronouncement of Award – Effect on Validity – Arbitral award reserved on 06.03.2021 and pronounced on 06.03.2023 – Delay of about two years after reserving the award – Held: Delay by itself is not a ground to set aside an award, but where such delay is unexplained and adversely reflects on the findings, the award stands vitiated as being in conflict with public policy of India and suffering from patent illegality [Paras 6–7, 13, 18].

Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Arbitration Clause Restricting Disputes – Arbitration clause permitted reference only where liability was admitted and dispute related solely to quantum – Insurer disputed existence of arbitral dispute after full and final settlement – Tribunal decided only the voluntariness of settlement but failed to adequately address whether an arbitrable dispute survived in view of the restrictive clause – Held: Issue went to the root of jurisdiction and was adversely impacted due to delay in pronouncement [Paras 8–12, 18–19].

Delay and Impact on Consideration of Arguments – Human Memory and Fairness – Long gap between conclusion of arguments and pronouncement of award shakes confidence of parties as to whether submissions were effectively weighed – Written submissions cannot substitute oral arguments – Held: Justice must not only be done but must appear to have been done – Delay created avoidable speculation and suspicion [Paras 13–15].

COVID-19 as Justification for Delay – Rejection – Tribunal attributed delay to COVID-19 till last quarter of 2022 – Supreme Court orders excluded period only till 28.02.2022 – Even after exclusion, delay of nearly one year remained unexplained – Reason that Tribunal members could not meet after reserving award indicated lack of deliberation – Held: Explanation for delay not acceptable [Paras 16–17].

Section 29A – Legislative Intent of Speedy Arbitration – Though Section 29A not applicable to pending proceedings, it crystallises legislative intent of expeditious resolution – Arbitration proceedings spanning nearly a decade with two-year delay in pronouncement defeated the object of arbitration [Paras 14–15].

Public Policy of India – Patent Illegality – Inordinate and unexplained delay affecting jurisdictional findings brings award within ambit of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Section 34(2A) – Award held patently illegal and unsustainable [Paras 6, 18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arbitral award dated 06.03.2023 set aside – Court refrained from examining merits of claims as jurisdictional issue itself vitiated by delay – All pending applications disposed of.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Trap Case – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Accused added during investigation – Complaint lodged with Lokayuktha on 03.01.2019 alleging demand/acceptance of illegal gratification – Pre-trap mahazar drawn and trap laid on same day – Tainted currency seized from hands of Accused No.1 – Petitioner (PSI) not named in FIR but arraigned as Accused No.3 in charge sheet based on recorded conversation with complainant – Cognizance taken and Spl.C.C. No.217/2023 registered – Petition filed to quash entire proceedings [Paras 1, 3, 8].

Quashment – Demand/acceptance not recovered from petitioner – Defence contentions – Petitioner contended no allegation of demand/acceptance against her, no recovery of tainted currency from her and complainant’s evidence indicates no demand by petitioner – Further urged that departmental enquiry on same facts ended in complete exoneration accepted by Disciplinary Authority – Hence, criminal trial (higher standard of proof) should not be permitted to proceed [Paras 4.1–4.2, 9].

Departmental exoneration – When it can justify quashment – Ashoo Surendranath Tewari line of cases invoked – Court noted reliance placed on Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP, EOW, CBI and principles drawn from P.S. Rajya and Radheshyam Kejriwal that where exoneration is on merits on identical allegations and identical material, continuation of criminal prosecution may amount to abuse of process [Para 9].

Limit on doctrine – Karnataka Lokayukta v. Chandrashekar – Evidence in two proceedings must be identical – Court considered Supreme Court decision in Karnataka Lokayukta, Bagalkote District v. Chandrashekar (2026 SCC OnLine SC 13) holding that departmental exoneration does not automatically nullify criminal prosecution – Key test is whether exoneration is truly on merits and whether evidence/witnesses/material are identical – Where departmental enquiry is limited / key witnesses not examined, quashment is not warranted [Paras 10–11].

Comparative witness analysis – Departmental enquiry not co-extensive with criminal trial – On facts, prosecution proposed 27 witnesses in criminal case; departmental enquiry examined only a few – Court noted several key witnesses cited in charge sheet (including spot sketch reporter, chemical examiner/FSL officials, nodal officers for call records, sanctioning authorities, investigating officers) were not examined in departmental enquiry – Hence, departmental enquiry evidence was not identical to criminal trial evidence and had “travelled only on the periphery” of demand/acceptance [Para 11].

Inherent powers – Refusal to stifle prosecution where prima facie material exists – State pointed to conversations between complainant and petitioner and contextual allegations of periodic bribe demand in relation to sand transport business – Court held such matters are for evaluation in a full-fledged trial – Section 482 jurisdiction not to be exercised to “obliterate” proceedings in these circumstances [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Proceedings in Spl.C.C. No.217/2023 to continue – Petitioner to establish innocence at trial [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Transfer of Criminal Case – Scope of Power of Sessions Judge under Section 408 Cr.P.C./Section 448 BNSS – Petition filed seeking transfer of complaint case alleging defamation on grounds of bias of the Presiding Magistrate, advanced age and medical condition of accused, and inconvenience due to distance – Sessions Judge dismissed transfer application holding that mere apprehension is insufficient – High Court examined parameters governing transfer jurisdiction – Held: Power of transfer is discretionary and to be exercised sparingly and only when expedient for the ends of justice – Mere allegations, conjectures or dissatisfaction with trial proceedings do not justify transfer – Apprehension must be reasonable, bona fide and supported by cogent material – No perversity or illegality found in impugned order declining transfer [Paras 6–12, 16].

Fair Trial – Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – Article 21 of Constitution – Right to fair trial is a facet of Article 21 – However, judicial error or adverse orders are not synonymous with judicial bias – Bald allegations against Presiding Officer or opposing counsel without substantiation amount to abuse of process – Courts must guard against forum shopping and erosion of judicial independence – Held: Petitioner failed to establish any credible material giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of fair trial [Paras 10–14, 16.2].

Transfer Applications – Abuse of Process – Forum Shopping – Increasing tendency of litigants to seek transfer on unfounded allegations deprecated – Transfer jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a tool to browbeat judicial officers or delay proceedings – Courts must respond firmly to frivolous and vexatious transfer pleas – Costs may be imposed to curb misuse of process – Though petitioner was of advanced age, conduct in casting aspersions on Court and counsel was deprecated [Paras 11–14, 16.2].

Delay in Trial – Age and Health of Accused – Pendency of complaint since 2019 and advanced age of accused by themselves do not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting transfer – Delay not solely attributable to trial Court or complainant – Appropriate remedies lie elsewhere under law and not by seeking transfer without adequate grounds [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Order of Sessions Judge rejecting transfer application upheld – Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on petitioner, partly payable to Haryana State Legal Services Authority and partly to complainant’s counsel – Directions issued for recovery of costs in case of default – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously and uninfluenced by observations made [Paras 17(i)–(iv)].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 CrPC – Revision petition filed against order refusing discharge of accused in a case alleging financial fraud by office-bearers of a Co-operative Society – Held: At the stage of discharge, Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out – Revisional court cannot assess probative value or admissibility of evidence in detail – No perversity or illegality in the Magistrate’s order declining discharge [Paras 6, 15].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Concealment of True Consideration – Conveyance of Society Property – Accused, as President and Secretary of Society, allegedly entered into agreement granting right of way to builder by suppressing actual consideration of ₹1.70 crores and showing only ₹35 lakhs – Society induced to part with valuable property on false representation – Held: Dishonest concealment of material facts causing wrongful loss to Society and wrongful gain to accused squarely attracts offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC [Paras 8–10].

Forgery – Section 468 IPC – False Document – Agreement Executed Without True Authority – Agreement executed by accused showing false consideration amount and misrepresenting approval of Society – Held: Document executed by suppressing true facts and without informed consent of Society constitutes a “false document” – Forgery committed for the purpose of cheating – Section 468 IPC prima facie attracted [Paras 11–12].

Falsification of Accounts – Section 477A IPC – False Entries in Society Records – Accused alleged to have made false entries in Minutes Book and registers of Society regarding consideration received – Held: Being officers of the Society, making false entries with intent to defraud the Society attracts Section 477A IPC [Para 13].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406 IPC – Entrustment – Amount paid by builder to accused not amounting to entrustment as defined under Section 405 IPC – Held: Section 406 IPC may not be attracted – However, existence of one unsustainable charge is not a ground to discharge accused when other offences are prima facie made out [Para 14].

Evidence at Discharge Stage – Statements of Witnesses and Income Tax Records – Prosecution relying on statements of builder’s officials, brokers and Income Tax officers to show payment of actual consideration – Held: Evaluation of credibility and admissibility of such evidence is a matter for trial – Cannot be examined in revision against refusal of discharge [Para 15].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order of Magistrate refusing discharge upheld – Prosecution to proceed for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 477A IPC – No ground for interference under revisional jurisdiction.

Hindu Law – Adoption – Effect of Valid Adoption – Severance from Biological Family – Adopted Son Acquiring Exclusive Rights in Adoptive Mother’s Property – Plea of Joint Hindu Family Rejected – Once adoption is not challenged and stands valid, adopted son ceases to be member of biological family and cannot be treated as coparcener with biological father and brother – Property of adoptive mother cannot become joint family property of biological family [Paras 23–26, 35–37].

Partition Suit – Unity of Title and Unity of Possession – Essential Requirements – Failure to Prove – Plaintiff claiming possession of only two rooms and not joint possession of entire property – Held: Mere residence or permissive occupation does not establish unity of title or joint possession – Suit for partition not maintainable in absence of joint ownership [Paras 29–31, 36].

Agreement Relied for Throwing Property into Joint Family – Proof and Credibility – Agreement dated 23.12.1948 (Ext.-9) Found Forged and Unreliable – Mention of municipal holding number not in existence on date of alleged execution – Plaintiff’s contradictory testimony regarding execution and knowledge of agreement – Held: Agreement not genuine and cannot confer any right or create joint family property [Paras 27–28, 33].

Adoption Deed – Challenge to Validity – Limitation – Plaintiff neither challenged adoption nor could do so after long lapse of time – Registered deed of adoption carries statutory presumption of validity – Consequences under Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act must follow [Paras 23–24].

Prior Litigation and Compromise Decree – Effect – Property of adoptive mother allotted to adopted son under compromise in First Appeal – Schedule ‘B’ property became exclusive property of adopted son during lifetime of adoptive mother – Plaintiff claiming through neither adoptive mother nor compromise – No independent right established [Paras 26, 32–35].

Permissive Possession – Nature and Effect – Plaintiff occupying two rooms without asserting hostile title or specifying date of entry – Held: Possession permissive and not indicative of ownership or joint title – Payment of municipal taxes after institution of suit does not create title [Paras 30–31].

Civil Procedure – Abatement – Death of One of Substituted Legal Heirs – Estate Sufficiently Represented – Appeal Not Abated – Distinction between non-substitution of party and non-substitution of one heir – No possibility of conflicting decrees – Appeal to proceed on merits [Paras 16–22].

Second Appeal – Scope – Findings of Fact by First Appellate Court – No Perversity – High Court not to reappreciate evidence – Substantial questions of law answered against appellant [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court affirmed – Plaintiff not entitled to any share in Schedule ‘B’ property – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Eye-Witness Testimony – Ocular Evidence Accepted – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering the deceased with a billhook following a long-standing property dispute – Conviction based on the direct and credible testimony of PW2 (daughter of the deceased), who witnessed the attack and heard dying declaration – Court found her testimony to be of “sterling witness” quality – Fully corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Held: Conviction sustainable based on ocular and corroborative evidence – No reason to disbelieve prosecution case [Paras 7–10]

Evidence Act – Dying Declaration – Section 32 – Admissibility – PW2 testified that the deceased stated before death that appellant inflicted the injuries – Held: Such statement qualifies as dying declaration – Supports conviction independently and corroborates eye-witness account [Para 10]

Evidence Act – Res Gestae – Section 6 – Spontaneous Statements Admissible – Statements made by deceased, accused, and PW2 during or immediately after the incident accepted as part of same transaction – Held: Admissible under res gestae exception to hearsay rule – Adds evidentiary value to PW2's testimony [Para 10]

Criminal Procedure – Blood Group Discrepancy – Contamination Explained – Blood group mismatch between postmortem report and chemical analysis report explained as due to bacterial contamination – Doctor’s explanation based on authoritative forensic literature accepted – Held: No impact on core prosecution case based on direct evidence – Scientific inconsistency not fatal [Paras 11–12]

Criminal Law – Right to Private Defence – No Evidence to Support – Appellant pleaded self-defence claiming deceased attacked first – No medical evidence of injuries on accused – Property not under immediate threat – Held: No proof that appellant was not aggressor – Plea of private defence rejected [Para 14]

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings – Trial court had carefully appreciated all material – High Court affirmed conviction after independent review – Held: No perversity or miscarriage of justice – Conviction and sentence upheld [Para 14]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld – Life imprisonment and fine confirmed – Court affirms trial court judgment based on credible eye-witness evidence, dying declaration, and medical corroboration – Plea of private defence and reliance on forensic discrepancy rejected.

Customs and Excise – Export Oriented Unit (EOU) – De-bonding – Final Date of Exit – Suo Motu De-bonding Order – Appellant EOU engaged in manufacture of silk fabrics sought exit from EOU scheme – Dispute regarding duty liability on capital goods and raw materials on de-bonding – Deputy Development Commissioner clarified vide letter dated 10.05.2019 that suo motu de-bonding order dated 08.08.2006 is to be treated as final date of exit – Held: Said clarification is material and goes to the root of determination of duty liability and applicability of concessional provisions [Paras 8–9, 13].

EOU – Condition No.10 of Standard Conditions – Applicability on De-bonding – Condition No.10 provides for levy of customs duty on depreciated value of capital goods and specified treatment of raw materials and excisable goods upon de-bonding after export obligation period – Held: Authorities were required to examine applicability of Condition No.10 in light of final exit date of 08.08.2006 – Failure to do so vitiates the impugned orders [Paras 8–10, 12].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Remand – Duty to Decide on Merits – CESTAT earlier remanded the matter directing de novo consideration – Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously held that earlier assessment had attained finality and that he had no power to revisit the issue – Held: Once matter is remanded for de novo consideration, appellate authority is duty-bound to examine entire matter on merits – Such refusal amounts to jurisdictional error [Paras 10–11].

Quasi-Judicial Authorities – Requirement of Reasoned Orders – Failure to Apply Mind – Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT failed to consider core contention regarding status of appellant as 100% EOU till 08.08.2006 and effect of clarification dated 10.05.2019 – CESTAT merely extracted findings of Commissioner (Appeals) without independent reasoning – Held: Orders suffer from non-application of mind and are unsustainable in law [Paras 11–12].

Judicial Review – Substantial Question of Law – Interference Justified – Substantial question of law framed as to whether CESTAT decided appeal without considering issues directed to be examined earlier – Held: Question answered in favour of appellant – Impugned orders liable to be set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 3, 12–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Final Order No.A/31463/2017 dated 11.09.2017 passed by CESTAT and Order-in-Appeal No.4 of 2004 (T) Cus dated 10.08.2004 set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration in accordance with law, taking into account clarification letter dated 10.05.2019 – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.