Cooperative Societies – Maintainability of Dispute – Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act – Allotment of FSI to Member – Tender restricted to society members only – Held: Dispute arises out of membership rights and touches the business of the society – Transaction not commercial in nature nor with outsider – Cooperative Court had jurisdiction [Paras 20–35, 36–43].

Housing Society – Utilization of FSI/TDR – Validity of MoUs – General Body resolution authorized Managing Committee to allot additional FSI – Formation of FSI Sub-Committee lawful – Execution of MoUs under such authority valid – Consideration paid and receipts issued – Subsequent challenge to MoUs unsustainable – Society bound by its resolutions [Paras 44–50].

Development Rights – Change from FSI to TDR – Subsequent resolutions (1991–1997) permitted use of TDR at member’s cost – Society continued to act upon MoUs – Plea that FSI lapsed rejected – Communications from Municipal Corporation do not extinguish rights created under society’s resolutions [Paras 51–56].

Procedural Irregularities and Alleged Collusion – Allegations of fraud, undue haste, and collusion with office bearers not proved – Meetings duly held, resolutions recorded, payments acknowledged – No evidence of misconduct – Findings of Cooperative and Appellate Courts based on proper appreciation of record; not perverse [Paras 57–63].

Judicial Discipline – Status Quo Order – Resolution cancelling MoUs passed in 2003 despite High Court’s interim order of status quo dated 13.01.2003 – Held: Cancellation void ab initio – Resolution passed in defiance of binding judicial direction unenforceable – Cooperative Courts rightly declared it invalid [Paras 64–69].

Equitable Principles – Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation – Member acted on society’s representations, paid consideration, and altered position – Society estopped from denying validity of MoUs or rescinding rights after acceptance of benefit – Agreements binding both in law and equity [Paras 70–76].

Interpretation – “Business of the Society” – Scope under Section 91 – Distinguished Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain (1968), Belganda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (1994 Mh LJ 1756), Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (5) Mh LJ 570) – Held: Unlike cited cases, here the housing society’s bye-laws expressly authorized real estate development – Allotment of FSI/TDR forms part of society’s business – Dispute maintainable before Cooperative Court [Paras 77–84].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Orders of Cooperative and Appellate Courts upheld – MoUs held valid and binding – Society directed to implement awards and effectuate MoUs within three months – No order as to costs [Para 85].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Maintainability – Applicant filed for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal in complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Held: In view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, complainant in a cheque dishonour case is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC – Such victim has an unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing leave of the High Court – Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 1–5].

Victim’s Right to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – Supreme Court clarified that a complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act case qualifies as a "victim" and thus can file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Requirement of special leave under Section 378(4) does not apply – Reiterated by High Court in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishore, Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs v. Pardeep Sharma, and Raj Kumar v. Rajender [Paras 2–4].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction – Appeal Transferred – Application treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC and directed to be placed before Sessions Judge, Ambala – Registry directed to transmit record and paper-book – Applicant directed to appear before Sessions Court on specified date – No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Application disposed of – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC – Ordered to be transferred to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication in accordance with law – Applicant directed to appear on 14.11.2025 – Registry to transmit complete record.

Criminal Law – Foreigners Act – Sentence Modification – Section 14 – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for rendering assistance to a Pakistani national accused of illegal stay – Trial Court sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Considering age (around 70 years), health condition, no previous criminal record, and long delay in proceedings (27 years since incident, 22 years since conviction), Court held continued incarceration would cause undue hardship – Sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 2, 4, 7–10].

Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances – Reformative Approach – Rehabilitation Emphasized – Appellant cited Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. to urge a reformative approach in sentencing – Held: Modern penology emphasizes rehabilitation over harsh punishment – Sentence must reflect factors like age, delay, prior record, health, and reintegration potential – Court accepted this view and applied it to reduce sentence [Paras 8–10].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified – Appeal not pressed on merits – Conviction sustained – Sentence of 2 years reduced to time already served (approx. 1 year 22 days) – Bail and surety bonds discharged – Trial Court and Jail Superintendent directed to be informed [Paras 7, 10–12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act maintained – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail and surety bonds discharged – Pending applications disposed.

Motor Accident Claim – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – FIR in the present case was lodged ten days after the accident – Held: Delay in FIR cannot by itself be a ground to reject claim – Human priorities in medical emergencies or last rites are valid reasons for delay – Reliance placed on Ravi v. Badrinarayan (2011) 4 SCC 693 [Paras 7, 10, 15]

Negligence – Eye-witness and Charge Sheet – Evidence of eye-witness (PW-3) established that offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and hit the deceased's motorcycle – Charge sheet filed against driver of the Truck – Driver and owner did not enter witness box to rebut claim – Site plan showing head-on collision cannot override direct oral evidence – Tribunal rightly held driver negligent – Reliance placed on ICICI Lombard v. Rajani Sahoo (2025) 2 SCC 599 and Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497 [Paras 3, 5, 6, 12–14]

Assessment of Compensation – Future Prospects – Tribunal awarded 50% future prospects applying Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules since deceased was aged 38 – Held: Tribunal justified in doing so as the Rule mandates 50% addition for persons below 40 – Rule prevails over Pranay Sethi guideline in the context of U.P. – Reliance placed on New India Assurance Co. v. Urmila Shukla (2021) 20 SCC 800 [Paras 3, 16]

Interest on Future Prospects – Permissible – Tribunal awarded interest on future prospects as well – Contention raised by insurer that such interest is impermissible was rejected – Held: Rule 220-A(6) allows interest on entire compensation amount – Supported by several precedents including Oriental Insurance v. Niru, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1431 – SLP against similar award dismissed by Supreme Court [Paras 17–22]

Evidence Standard – Preponderance of Probabilities – Court reiterated that in motor accident claims, standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Reliance placed on Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi (2023) 13 SCC 510 and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 [Paras 5, 6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Tribunal’s award of ₹18,34,000/- with 7% interest upheld – Direction to refund statutory deposit of ₹25,000/- to Tribunal.

Family Law – Matrimonial Property – Return of Gold Ornaments – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Wife alleged entrustment of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments to husband as trustee post-marriage – Husband denied, relying on compromise agreement (Ext. A2) admitting only 38½ sovereigns – Held: Ext. A2 genuine and voluntarily executed – Oral evidence and marriage photographs corroborate possession of about 40 sovereigns only – Trial Court erred in granting decree for 75 sovereigns – Modified to 38½ sovereigns – Wife entitled to return of ornaments or equivalent market value [Paras 10–15].

Family Law – Recovery of Money – Entrustment – Oral and documentary evidence (PWs 1–4, Exts. B8 & P9 bank extracts) establish payment of ₹7,00,000 by wife’s father for house construction – Ext. A2 terms corroborate deposit and property transfer obligations – Finding of Family Court upheld; appellant liable to refund ₹7,00,000 with 6% interest [Paras 16–17].

Family Law – Household Articles – Ext. A2 includes clause acknowledging ₹2,00,000 towards furniture and household items – Trial Court rightly decreed recovery; no interference warranted [Para 16].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum – Respondent-wife unemployed; appellant working abroad earning ₹1,00,000 per month – Maintenance of ₹5,000 each for wife and elder child, ₹2,500 each for two younger children upheld – Family Court to reassess when any child attains majority [Paras 18–19].

Evidence – Admissions in Writing – Mediated Settlement – Ext. A2 Agreement signed voluntarily; binding on parties – Absence of duress or coercion established through mediator’s (PW4) testimony – Explanation of “compulsion” rejected as afterthought [Paras 12–13].

Civil Procedure – Appellate Review – Concurrent factual findings based on oral and documentary evidence not disturbed unless perverse – Family Court’s findings on monetary claims sustained; partial interference only as to quantum of gold ornaments [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Matrimonial Appeal No. 1034 of 2016 partly allowed – Decree for return of gold ornaments modified from 75 to 38½ sovereigns or market value equivalent – Other reliefs, including ₹7,00,000 and maintenance, confirmed – Revision Petition (Family Court) No. 37 of 2017 dismissed [Para 19].

Service Law – Recruitment – Hindi Teacher (Contractual) – Educational Qualification – Equivalence of “Rastrabhasa Sastri” with Bachelor’s Degree – Eligibility under Resolution dated 27.10.2014 – Respondent applied for the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher under the 2014-15 Advertisement – Collector, Angul rejected candidature citing less than 45% marks in Graduation and lack of training qualification – Single Judge quashed rejection holding “Rastrabhasa Sastri” equivalent to +3/B.A. and directed appointment – Division Bench examined whether Sastri qualification could be treated as equivalent to Graduation [Paras 3.1, 6–7.8].

Equivalence of Degree – Recognition by Competent Authorities – “Rastrabhasa Sastri” from Odisha Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri – Utkal University Notification dated 28.10.2011 and Government of India letter dated 26.07.1979 recognized “Sastri” as equivalent to B.A. – Supported by previous judgments including Smruti Rekha Mishra v. State of Odisha (2022 (I) ILR-CUT 219), Aparna Sinha v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.10616/2020), and Nihar Ranjan Sarangi v. State of Odisha (WPC (OAC) No.1976/2015) – Held: Marks in Sastri examination must be considered for determining eligibility [Paras 6.1–6.5, 8.1–9.1].

Interpretation – “And” / “Or” in Statutory Clauses – Disjunctive vs. Conjunctive Reading – Clause 3(f) of Resolution dated 27.10.2014 prescribing alternative qualifications for Hindi Teachers – Court held that “Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi” or “Sastri” are alternative conditions – Both need not co-exist – Applying established principles of statutory construction (CIT v. Puthu Thotam Estates, (1981) 127 ITR 481 (Mad); Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, (2023) 11 SCR 731) [Paras 7–7.5].

Untrained Candidates – Eligibility and Appointment – Clause 3(f) of 2014 Resolution – Candidates without training qualification could apply, subject to completing training within the prescribed timeline – Supported by decisions in Satyabrata Nayak v. State of Odisha (WPC (OAC) No.902/2016) and Nihar Ranjan Sarangi (supra) – Respondent eligible for consideration under untrained category [Paras 5.2–5.3, 7.8(iii)].

Precedent – Binding Effect – Consistency in Judicial View – Division Bench relied on the settled judicial interpretation that “Sastri” qualification is equivalent to B.A. – State failed to demonstrate any perversity or distinction in facts warranting interference – Appeal devoid of merit [Paras 9–9.2].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge upheld – Direction for appointment of respondent as Contractual Hindi Teacher sustained – No order as to costs [Para 10].

Labour Law – Reinstatement – Illegal Termination – Voluntary Resignation Not Proved – Tribunal directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages – Employer challenged award citing alleged resignation and full and final settlement – Held: Photocopies of alleged resignation and cheque were not proved through admissible evidence – Workman denied receiving settlement beyond salary dues – Tribunal rightly rejected employer’s plea and held termination illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of I.D. Act [Paras 5–11].

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – Employer’s Burden to Prove Gainful Employment – Management challenged grant of 50% back wages arguing absence of claim of unemployment by workman – Held: Burden was on employer to prove gainful employment during the period of termination – In absence of such evidence, Tribunal’s award of back wages sustainable – Relief consistent with Hindustan Tin Works and Deepali Gundu Surwase decisions of the Supreme Court [Paras 12–14].

Industrial Law – Demand Notice – Discrepancy in Date of Appointment – Tribunal found actual date of appointment as 05.09.2013 based on management’s own record – Held: Mere discrepancy in dates across multiple demand notices immaterial where employment and termination were otherwise established – Finding of Tribunal affirmed [Para 4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Tribunal’s award of reinstatement with 50% back wages upheld – Management failed to prove resignation or settlement and failed to discharge burden of proving gainful employment – No interference warranted under Article 226.

Tender Law – Disqualification of Lowest Bidder – Abnormally Low Bid – Petitioner submitted financial bid quoting ₹1.92 for Packet-1 and ₹4.55 for Packet-2 in UIDAI tender for Aadhaar document verification services – Petitioner declared L-1 based on highest technical score and lowest combined commercial bid – Financial Evaluation Committee (FEC) disqualified bid citing price as “abnormally low” for Packet-1 – Court held: Though RFP did not expressly permit rejection on such ground, none of the other bidders agreed to match L-1 rate, frustrating the tender process – Held: Disqualification justified in larger public interest despite procedural lapses [Paras 26–43, 46–50]

Tender Evaluation – QCBS and RFP Compliance – RFP mandated equal weightage to Packet-1 and Packet-2 for financial bid evaluation under Clauses 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 – FEC considered only Packet-1 rate of ₹1.92 while disqualifying petitioner – Court held: Evaluation process flawed and not in full compliance with RFP – However, since tender required multiple vendors and other bidders refused to match rate, FEC's action was not arbitrary – Court declined to interfere [Paras 33–38, 41–43]

Public Procurement – Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Article 226 in contractual matters – Held: Court will not supplant expert views unless decision is perverse, arbitrary, or actuated by mala fides – FEC considered petitioner’s clarifications twice, recorded reasons in rejection report – Mere error in procedure does not warrant interference if public interest outweighs private loss – Petition dismissed [Paras 44–48]

Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Compliance – Petitioner given two opportunities to justify pricing and explain technical approach – FEC recorded detailed reasons for rejection after reviewing clarifications – Principles of natural justice held to be satisfied – No procedural illegality found [Paras 44–47]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference warranted under Article 226 – Procedural lapse by FEC in not strictly following RFP clauses did not vitiate outcome – Disqualification based on inability of other bidders to match price protected larger public interest – Pending applications disposed of.

Banking Law – Priority of Secured Creditors – Sections 26E SARFAESI Act and 31B RDB Act – Mortgage created in 2011 by borrower in favour of petitioner bank – Subsequent attachment of same property by SDM, Jaunpur in 2015 for recovery of dues of Food and Civil Supply Department – Held: Illegal – Statutory charge of secured creditor has overriding effect – Secured debts have priority over all government dues, taxes, or cesses – Non obstante clause in both provisions overrides any inconsistent law – Attachment order quashed [Paras 9–20].

Secured vs. Unsecured Creditors – Principle – Rights of secured creditors under SARFAESI Act are statutory and prevail over unsecured government dues – Common law principle of Crown debt confined to unsecured creditors – Parliament having enacted specific statutory provisions conferring priority, government dues cannot supersede secured debt – Reliance placed on Union of India v. SICOM Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 121 and Central Bank of India v. Siriguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 353 [Paras 13, 19].

Statutory Interpretation – Competing Non Obstante Clauses – Later Enactment Prevails – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators (P) Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 210 applied – When two statutes contain non obstante clauses, later enactment with overriding provision prevails – Priority of secured creditors under Section 26E SARFAESI Act (inserted in 2016) prevails over earlier statutes creating unsecured government dues [Paras 15, 17].

Crown Debt – Doctrine – Extent – Government dues do not automatically create first charge unless statute expressly provides – Secured creditors’ rights not overridden by administrative recoveries under revenue laws – Punjab National Bank v. Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 260 followed [Paras 14, 19].

Recovery Proceedings – Jurisdiction – Authorities under revenue laws have no jurisdiction to attach mortgaged assets after creation of registered security interest – Possession to be delivered to bank under Section 14 SARFAESI Act – Actions contrary to statutory priority are ultra vires and void [Paras 10–12, 18].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Attachment order dated 09.02.2015 passed by SDM, Jaunpur set aside – Held that secured creditor (Bank of Baroda) has first charge and priority over mortgaged property – State dues being unsecured cannot override statutory priority under Sections 26E and 31B – Respondents restrained from interfering with bank’s recovery proceedings – No order as to costs [Paras 20].