Civil Writ - Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – Maintainability under Article 226 – Petition by grandfather for custody of minor against mother – Though remedy under Guardians and Wards Act exists, writ maintainable to protect liberty of minor when detained by person not legally entitled under personal law – Supreme Court in Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Tewari (2019) 7 SCC 42 relied upon – Held: Habeas corpus maintainable in exceptional custody cases [Paras 11, 19].

Custody Rights – Muslim Personal Law – Section 354, Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law – Mother ordinarily entitled to custody of minor; disqualified if she marries stranger without divorce, neglects child or lives immorally – Respondent No.5 deserted child in 2016, performed second marriage in 2018 without dissolving first, bore child in 2020, concealed facts, filed suspicious unregistered “khulanama” – Held: Respondent No.5 disqualified under Section 354(1) & (4); custody with her illegal [Paras 12, 25-28].

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Minor resided with grandfather since 2018; received good education and medical care; expressed preference to stay with grandfather during in-camera interaction – Grandfather financially sound and capable; mother financially dependent and neglected child – Held: Welfare demands custody with grandfather [Paras 21, 26-28].

Conduct of Litigant – Suppression of Material Facts – Respondent No.5 misled Court by initially denying second marriage and child, later producing doubtful “khulanama” – Supreme Court precedents (Badami v. Bhali, V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, Yashoda v. Sukhwinder Singh) followed – Held: Litigant approaching Court with unclean hands not entitled to relief [Paras 12, 19, 26-27].

Visitation Rights – Despite disqualification, limited access granted – Mother allowed to meet child every second Sunday of alternate months between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at place decided by grandfather, without disturbing custody [Para 30].

Decision – Habeas Corpus Petition Allowed – Custody of minor Jakwan Khan @ Rakan restored to petitioner-grandfather Rahisuddin Khan – Mother’s custody declared illegal – Petitioner directed to create fixed deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs in child’s name until age 18 – Father restrained from taking child abroad till majority – Limited visitation rights to mother – No order as to costs [Paras 28-30].

Waqf Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition – Challenge to Waqf Tribunal Order – Articles 226 and 227 – Writ Petitions Held Maintainable - The petitioners questioned the legality of the Waqf Tribunal’s declaration of suit land as Waqf property – Objection raised by Opposite Parties that only a revision is maintainable under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act – Held: In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiran Devi, jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 is not ousted – The nomenclature of the petition as “writ” is immaterial when substance falls under supervisory jurisdiction of the Court [Paras 4-7].

Nature of Jurisdiction – Distinction Between Appellate and Supervisory Review – High Court’s Role Under Proviso to Section 83(9) – Reiterated - The High Court does not act as an appellate court under Section 83(9) – Its jurisdiction is limited to examining correctness, legality, or propriety of the Waqf Tribunal’s order – Reference made to L. Chandra Kumar and Pepsi Foods Ltd. to hold that wrong labeling of a petition does not affect the Court’s power to adjudicate [Paras 6-7].

Procedural Directions – Reclassification of Petitions – CMP Nomenclature Mandated - Though petitions are maintainable, the Court emphasized that applications arising under Article 227 must be procedurally registered as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (CMPs) as per Orissa High Court Rules – Directed Registry to re-register the writ petitions as CMPs and place before the appropriate Single Bench [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Writ Petitions Maintainable – To Be Heard by Single Judge – The Court upheld the maintainability of the petitions under Article 227 while clarifying that procedural reclassification is necessary – Directed registry to take necessary steps accordingly [Para 9].

Criminal Law - Discharge Application – Criminal Complaint over Co-owned Property – Section 239 CrPC – Rejection Set Aside - Petitioners, co-sharers of a pond, were accused of criminal intimidation and theft of fish – Trial Court rejected the discharge plea – Held: Allegations lacked criminal intent and involved a civil dispute over property rights – No prima facie offence under Section 379 IPC made out – Order refusing discharge quashed [Paras 1, 4, 11, 14-15].

Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Offence – Co-sharers and WAQF Property – No Exclusive Possession – Criminal Proceedings Quashed - The pond was claimed to be WAQF property with multiple co-sharers – Petitioners' father and uncle recorded as title holders – No evidence of exclusive ownership by complainant – Held: Dispute over sharing of fish among co-owners does not attract criminal liability under IPC without proof of dishonest intent – Criminal case an abuse of process [Paras 6, 9, 13-14].

Abuse of Process – Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC – Protection Against Frivolous Litigation – Invoked - In light of Supreme Court rulings in Paramjeet Batra, Naresh Kumar, and Usha Chakraborty, Court reiterated that where a dispute is essentially civil, cloaked as criminal, inherent power must be used to prevent judicial time being wasted – Criminal proceedings quashed accordingly [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Discharge Granted - Revisional application allowed – Order dated 07.03.2007 of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah set aside – No cost imposed – Certified copy directed to be issued on compliance [Paras 14-17].

Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal – Offences under Sections 336, 427, 447, 506 IPC and Section 3(v) SC/ST Act – Acquittal Affirmed – State challenged acquittal of accused for allegedly damaging construction, pelting stones, and hurling caste-based abuses – Trial Court held land was jointly owned, exclusive possession not proved, civil dispute pending, and prosecution evidence riddled with contradictions – High Court held trial court’s view was reasonable, no perversity or misreading of evidence found – Appeal dismissed, acquittal upheld [Paras 12-13, 33-35].

Scope of Interference in Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference permissible only if judgment suffers from perversity, misreading, or omission to consider material evidence – If two reasonable views are possible, acquittal cannot be disturbed – Trial Court’s view upheld as a possible view [Paras 12-13, 34].

Criminal Trespass – Section 447 IPC – Joint Ownership of Land – No partition by metes and bounds – Complainant’s exclusive possession not proved – Trespass charge unsustainable [Para 33].

Evidentiary Contradictions – Witnesses inconsistent about dates of pillar construction – Photographs showed only iron bars, not completed pillars – Demarcation report did not note damaged pillars – Contradictions undermined prosecution case [Paras 23-26].

Disproportionate Estimate of Damage – Contract for entire house was ₹55,000 – Yet estimate of damage to two pillars inflated to ₹2,00,850 – Cast doubt on prosecution’s claim [Para 28].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(v) – Omnibus Allegation of Caste Abuse – Witnesses made generalised statements attributing caste abuses jointly to accused – No specific role assigned – Following Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, such omnibus inclusion unsafe – Charge not proved [Paras 30-31].

Alleged Stone Pelting – No stones recovered at spot – Site plan and photographs silent on stone debris – Prosecution version disbelieved [Para 32].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Bail bonds of ₹25,000 each directed under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS, 2023) for six months [Paras 35-36].

Sales Tax – Exemption on Inter-State Sale – G.O. 3602 dated 28.12.1963 – Claim Rejected – Petitioner purchased gingelly seeds within Tamil Nadu (tax-paid) and from other States; claimed exemption on inter-State sale of locally purchased seeds – Assessing authority found stock mingled on inspection; Tribunal upheld denial of exemption – Held: Mere maintenance of separate accounts insufficient when physical mingling established – Exemption rightly denied – Writ dismissed [Paras 2–10].

Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 – Court cannot reappreciate factual findings of tax authorities where inspection reports conclusively show mingling of goods – Tribunal’s decision based on evidence upheld – Writ Court’s role limited to examining decision-making process, not merits [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders of Assessing Authority and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Confirmed – No costs [Para 10].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Enhancement – Section 168, Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Enhanced – Claimant, a 29-year-old labourer, suffered multiple injuries and 30% permanent disability in a road accident – MACT awarded ₹66,000/- with 6% interest – High Court held Tribunal erred in ignoring Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board – Applying multiplier method, daily wages, and future prospects, Court reassessed compensation at ₹2,11,880/- with 6% interest – Held: Just compensation must be awarded even if it exceeds the claim amount; appeal allowed, compensation enhanced [Paras 12-21].

Assessment of Disability – Medical Board Certificate – Cannot be ignored – PW-2, Orthopedic Surgeon and Board member, certified 30% permanent disability – Tribunal wrongly reduced to ₹30,000/- – Court accepted disability assessment, computed loss of earning capacity accordingly [Paras 13-15, 17].

Just Compensation – Broad and Liberal Approach – Supreme Court precedents (Baby Sakshi Greola; Yadava Kumar; Rajkumar; Sidram) emphasize liberal and realistic computation – Compensation not confined to rigid formulas; Court must restore injured as far as possible to pre-accident status [Paras 12, 16].

Awarding More Than Claimed – No Restriction – In line with Nagappa, Kajal, and Ramla – Tribunal/Court bound to grant “just compensation” even beyond claim amount – Principle applied to grant enhanced award exceeding original claim [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced from ₹66,000/- to ₹2,11,880/- with 6% interest per annum from date of petition till realization – Liability fastened on owner and insurer jointly – Claimant entitled to withdraw enhanced amount; required to pay Court fee on enhanced portion – No order as to costs [Para 21].

Service Law – Academic Arrangement Lecturers – Constitutional Validity of Exclusion from Regularization – Upheld – Petitioners appointed on academic arrangement basis sought regularization and struck down of Section 3(b), 10(2), and 10(2A) of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 – Held: Classification excluding academic arrangement appointees from regularization is not arbitrary – It has rational nexus with object of Act which is to regularize only those engaged against clear vacancies on ad hoc, contractual, or consolidated basis – Article 14 does not mandate equal treatment for unequals – Section 3(b) and related provisions held constitutionally valid [Paras 24–29].

Nature of Appointment – Academic Arrangement vs Ad hoc/Contractual – Distinction Determined – Appointments made against sanctioned posts and continued year after year either through limited selection or court intervention held to be contractual and consolidated in nature – Such appointments qualify for regularization under the Act of 2010 – Academic arrangement nomenclature not determinative – Substance of engagement considered over form [Paras 30–33].

Relief Granted – Directions for Regularization – High Court directs constitution of High-Level Committee to identify eligible appointees – Only those engaged prior to the commencement of the Act of 2010 against clear vacancies and completed 7 years of continuous service found eligible – Regularization to be prospective or retrospective based on date of eligibility – Future academic arrangements against clear vacancies prohibited – Committee to explore creation of additional teaching posts and refer vacancies to Public Service Commission [Paras 36–37].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed in Part – Tribunal’s judgment partially set aside – Section 3(b), 10(2), and 10(2A) upheld as valid – However, petitioners engaged prior to the Act on sanctioned posts held entitled to benefit of regularization – Matter remitted to committee for scrutiny and implementation of regularization exercise [Paras 29, 36–37].

Company Law – Challenge to Sale Transactions – Validity of Board Resolutions – Appellant disputed the execution of sale deeds in favour of 36 purchasers alleging lack of authority and fraudulent resolutions – Court found that the board resolutions dated 12.01.1996, 10.02.1996, and 27.11.1999 were validly passed – Appellant was signatory to key resolutions and raised no timely challenge – Sales upheld as valid and binding [Paras 16–24, 28–30].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 10F Companies Act – Scope – Court reiterated that appeals under Section 10F lie only on substantial questions of law – Factual findings by Company Law Board cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse – Cited decisions in V.S. Krishnan, Purnima Manthena, Dale & Carrington, and others – No legal infirmity found in CLB findings [Paras 28–33].

Oppression and Mismanagement – Winding Up – Appellant sought winding up on grounds of ceased business and mismanagement – Court held mere lack of business does not warrant winding up where substantial assets remain – Findings of Company Court that oppression not proved upheld – No just and equitable ground for winding up made out [Paras 25–27, 34–40, 54].

Indoor Management Rule – Siblings as Directors – Appellant claimed ignorance of company affairs – Court rejected invocation of Turquand's rule – All directors had knowledge and participated in decisions – Cannot disclaim responsibility for valid acts of the board [Paras 41–44].

Sale Consideration – Verification by Chartered Accountant – Chartered Accountant appointed by Company Law Board and again by Court confirmed receipt of sale consideration by the company – Minor discrepancies noted but no evidence of misappropriation – No basis to direct deposit or surrender by directors [Paras 45–48, 56–57].

Specific Performance Suit – Mrs. Jayaraj – Suit filed for specific performance based on alternate board minutes dismissed – Minutes III disavowed – Title conferred only to 36 purchasers under registered sale deeds – No recognition of other alleged agreements [Paras 18–19, 52–53].

Decision: All appeals (O.S.A. Nos. 430 & 431 of 2001, C.M.A. No.403 of 2007, Company Appeal No.17 of 2009, C.M.P. No.2007 of 2025) dismissed – Sale deeds to 36 purchasers upheld – Winding up refused – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 51, 54, 58].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Extra-Judicial Confession and Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Ordered – The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the alleged murder of his parents based on extra-judicial confessions and recoveries made at his instance – The High Court found that the alleged confessions were made in the presence of police and were not recorded under Section 164 CrPC, making them inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – Further, the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, with no forensic report linking the accused to the crime – Held: The conviction was not legally sustainable and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused – The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted [Paras 4, 16, 21–22, 26–33].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Presence of Police – Inadmissible and Unreliable – The conviction was based largely on extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the appellant before local witnesses – Held: As confessions were made in presence of police personnel, voluntariness is doubtful and such statements cannot be relied upon – No confession was recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Confession inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act [Paras 26–31].

Recovery of Weapons – Non-Compliance with Section 27 Evidence Act – Doubt Cast – Though weapons and blood-stained clothes were allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, there was no recorded discovery statement – No FSL report to link recovered items with the crime – The prosecution failed to establish nexus between recovery and the alleged offence [Paras 21–22, 27].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Incomplete – Conviction Not Sustainable – The prosecution failed to prove motive, discovery statement, or forensic link – No eyewitness and no direct evidence – Medical opinion did not support weapon used – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete to exclude every hypothesis other than guilt – Conviction unsustainable in law [Paras 4, 16, 32].

Standard of Proof – Extra-Judicial Confession Requires Greater Scrutiny – Citing precedents including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Ramu Appa Mahapatar, court held that extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, reliable, and corroborated – These standards were not met in the present case – Confession not recorded in safe environment – No voluntary or corroborated statement [Paras 11–15, 30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered – The High Court found serious procedural lapses and gaps in evidence – Benefit of doubt extended to the accused – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/201 IPC set aside – Appellant directed to be released unless wanted in any other case [Para 33].