Service Law – Pay Protection – Ex-Servicemen – Discrimination among Constables appointed from same recruitment list – Violation of Article 14 – All respondents were ex-servicemen selected under the same 2018 recruitment list – Due to COVID-19 related constraints, training was conducted in four separate batches and appointments staggered – Only the first batch received pay protection while others were denied – Held: All candidates formed a homogeneous group as per the same advertisement and selection process – No intelligible differentia existed to justify differential treatment – Administrative exigencies like pandemic or infrastructure constraints cannot be grounds for hostile discrimination – Judgment of learned single-judge granting parity upheld [Paras 3, 5, 15-25].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Permissible Classification – Select list cannot be fragmented for pay or service benefits based on training schedule imposed by the State – Training is not part of the selection process but follows appointment under Rule 18 – Discrimination based on batch-wise training lacks rational nexus with the object of selection and violates equality before law [Paras 13, 16-20].

Recruitment – Service Benefits – Uniform Entitlements – No statutory rule authorizes different treatment in pay protection within the same select list – Court reiterates principles from Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar – Entire class entitled to uniform benefits including pay protection [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Special Appeals dismissed – Judgment of single-judge affirmed – State directed to grant pay protection and consequential benefits to all affected candidates within twelve weeks [Para 26].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Review by Higher Authority – Power under Rule 21 of 1970 Rules – Appellant Forest Guard was exonerated by Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority – However, Conservator of Forest (Reviewing Authority) reopened the case, issued show cause notice, and imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect – Held: Under Rule 21, reviewing authority is empowered to differ with findings of Enquiry Officer, provided reasons are communicated and opportunity of hearing is granted – In present case, inquiry had already been conducted and due opportunity was afforded – Action held valid [Paras 5-6].

Negligence – Duty of Forest Guard – Liability for Unauthorized Tree Felling – Contractor auctioned 10 shisham trees but felled 12 additional trees – Appellant failed to report or prevent illegal felling despite being in charge of the beat – Two trees were removed and 10 recovered – Compensation was paid but no action against contractor – Held: Appellant failed in duty to monitor forest area – Inference of connivance drawn – Penalty justified [Paras 8-9].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Both trial and first appellate courts found against appellant after considering oral and documentary evidence – No perversity found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – No costs – Decree to be drawn [Paras 10-11].

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Variation in Contract Items – Petitioner sought payment for variation (non-BoQ) items under IPC-5 for road works undertaken under a separate contract – Arbitral Tribunal, by majority, awarded part of the claim (Rs.77.98 lakhs) based on Clause 37.2 rates – Petitioner challenged award under Section 34 alleging rates should have been fixed under Clause 37.1 – Held: Petitioner failed to furnish required supporting documents and rate analysis as mandated under Clause 37.1 – First respondent rightly relied on Clause 37.2 and fixed rates based on Chennai National Highways Circle schedule – Tribunal’s approach found reasonable and plausible – No grounds for interference under Section 34 [Paras 9–17]

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Review – Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – High Court held that arbitral award based on a possible interpretation of contract and evidence does not warrant interference – No perversity or patent illegality found – Reiterated that courts are not to sit in appeal over arbitrators’ views unless award shocks conscience or violates public policy [Para 17]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Arbitral award upheld – No costs.

Matrimonial Law – Anti-Suit Injunction – Divorce Proceedings – Foreign Court Jurisdiction – Indian trial court granted ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting divorce and maintenance proceedings in UK Family Court – Held: Principle of forum non conveniens cannot be invoked by Indian court to restrain proceedings in a foreign court – Jurisdictional challenge must be addressed by the UK Court itself – Both spouses had deep-rooted residential and financial ties with the UK – Respondent-husband’s claims of inconvenience held to be untenable [Paras 35-44]

Private International Law – Competence of Foreign Court – UK Family Court – Wife residing in the UK since 2015 and instituted proceedings in UK under UK law – UK court's competence under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973 already under adjudication by the UK Court itself – Indian court must defer to such determination – Even under Hindu Marriage Act, territorial jurisdiction principles could prima facie support UK jurisdiction based on wife’s residence and last place of cohabitation [Paras 45-53]

Foreign Judgments – Section 13 CPC – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Whether ground recognized under Indian Law – Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita held that irretrievable breakdown may constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA – Ratio forms binding precedent under Article 141 – Distinguished from Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, which did not overrule Rakesh Raman – UK proceeding not necessarily founded on refusal to recognize Indian law [Paras 54-62]

Comity of Courts – Respect for Foreign Proceedings – Indian court’s interference with valid maintenance order passed by UK court violates principle of comity – UK court had already fixed the matter for jurisdictional adjudication and stayed its own proceedings – Premature for Indian court to restrain UK proceedings through anti-suit injunction [Paras 63-71]

Civil Procedure – Section 10 CPC – Non-Applicability to Foreign Suits – Mere earlier filing of divorce suit by husband in India not sufficient to justify anti-suit injunction – Section 10 CPC applies only where both suits are in Indian courts – No authority for Indian court to stay a foreign proceeding [Para 76]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned anti-suit injunction order dated 01/11/2025 set aside – Respondent's plea for stay of judgment rejected – Observations made are tentative and will not prejudice either party in Indian or UK proceedings [Paras 76-79]

Criminal Law -  NDPS Act – Illegal Possession – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Section 15 NDPS Act for alleged possession of 160 kg poppy husk – Conviction based solely on official witness testimonies – Independent witness not examined – No written compliance or communication to superior officer under Section 42(2) – No production of case property before Magistrate proven – Held: Prosecution failed to establish compliance with mandatory statutory provisions – Testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 found inconsistent and unreliable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 18–35].

NDPS Act – Section 42 Violation – Secret information received by police was not reduced to writing nor communicated to superior officer within 72 hours – No explanation offered for non-compliance – Such procedural lapse held fatal to prosecution case – Supreme Court decisions in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj followed – Recovery held suspicious [Paras 19–24].

NDPS Act – Link Evidence and Tampering – Failure to prove production of sealed case property before Magistrate – Seal retained by officer conducting seizure – Crucial link witness (ASI Ranjit Singh) not examined and no alternative proof provided – Absence of DDR entries and unexplained gaps raise possibility of tampering – Held: Break in chain of custody rendered recovery doubtful [Paras 27–30].

Witness Testimony – Official Witness Credibility – Contradictions in deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding duration of presence, location, and process – Non-joining of independent witnesses despite availability – Failure to examine sole claimed eyewitness – Held: Prosecution version suffers from fatal contradictions and lack of corroboration – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 26, 32–34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 15 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 35].

Limitation Law - Review – Delay in Filing – Condonation of Delay – Review Petition filed with delay of 5743 days from judgment date and 489 days from dismissal of SLP – Explanation based on routine administrative process, file movement, legal opinion, and internal approvals – Held: Reasons offered by the State reflect gross negligence, red-tapism, and callous approach – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Law of limitation binds all parties, including the State – Petition dismissed [Paras 6–23].

Limitation – Delay by State – No Special Treatment – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that delay by government departments cannot be condoned merely due to inefficiency or file processing – State must act diligently – Law of limitation applies equally to government and private parties – Casual explanation based on administrative routine is insufficient to constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 8–13, 21].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Litigation – Supreme Court had already dismissed SLP against the same judgment citing both delay and merits – Review Petition effectively attempts to reopen what has attained finality – Held: Review jurisdiction cannot override or dilute findings of Supreme Court – Attempt to revisit settled matter rejected [Paras 5, 24].

Decision: Delay condonation application rejected – Consequently, Civil Misc. Review Petition also dismissed – State failed to offer sufficient cause for inordinate delay – Judgment dated 13.11.2009 attains finality [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Proof of Penetration – Conviction under Section 6 r/w 5(m) – Victim aged eight years alleged penetrative sexual assault – FIR contained allegation of penetration – However, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and medical evidence showed only attempt to rape – Doctors found hymen intact with no injuries – Held: Inconsistent versions and absence of medical corroboration render conviction for penetrative sexual assault unsafe – Conviction under Section 6 r/w 5(m) POCSO set aside [Paras 10–11].

Child Witness – Appreciation of Evidence – Partial Acceptance – Testimony of victim trustworthy to extent of sexual assault and attempt to rape – Evidence of great grandmother (PW2) and sister (PW3) corroborated presence of accused and wrongful confinement – Though penetration not proved beyond reasonable doubt, sexual assault established – Evidence cannot be discarded in entirety [Paras 9, 12].

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault on Child Below 12 Years – Section 9(m) r/w 10 – Victim admittedly below 12 years – Acts proved amount to sexual assault though not penetrative – Conviction altered from Section 6 r/w 5(m) to Section 9(m) r/w 10 POCSO – Sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine imposed [Paras 12–13].

Kidnapping – Section 366 IPC – Sentence – Trial Court imposed seven years imprisonment – Considering nature of proved offence and modified conviction under POCSO – Sentence reduced to five years imprisonment with fine – Held proportionate to facts established [Para 14].

Attempt to Rape – Section 376 r/w 511 IPC – Separate Sentence – Not imposed – Accused already convicted and sentenced under Section 9(m) r/w 10 POCSO for same act – Separate punishment unnecessary [Para 15].

Criminal Appeal – Power of Appellate Court – Modification of Conviction and Sentence – Appellate Court entitled to reappreciate evidence and alter conviction to lesser offence supported by evidence – Benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. granted – Sentences directed to run concurrently [Paras 16(i)–(vi)].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 6 r/w 5(m) POCSO set aside – Accused convicted under Section 9(m) r/w 10 POCSO and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine – Sentence under Section 366 IPC reduced to five years – No separate sentence for Section 376 IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Set-off granted.

Service Law – Termination – Misconduct – Embezzlement by Bus Conductor – Enquiry Valid – Respondent conductor was terminated after being found guilty of collecting fare from 22 passengers without issuing tickets – Enquiry conducted and show cause notice issued – Personal hearing afforded – High Court held that mere non-examination of passengers is not fatal to enquiry – Relied on Supreme Court precedent that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to domestic enquiries – Held: Termination order validly passed after full opportunity and adherence to natural justice [Paras 7-12].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Sufficient Compliance – Respondent was issued chargesheet (Ex.D-2), participated in enquiry, cross-examined witnesses, and received personal hearing before final order – Court held that procedural fairness was satisfied – Argument of lack of opportunity rejected [Paras 9-12].

Evidence – Enquiry Report – Reliance on Official Testimony – Statement of inspectors Rohtash and Ramdia accepted as basis of findings – Conductor failed to rebut charges or produce passenger witnesses – Enquiry Officer’s report accepted as well-reasoned and supported by documentary material [Paras 5, 10-11].

Second Appeal – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Improper Interference – First Appellate Court reversed Trial Court's dismissal solely on the ground that passengers were not examined – Held: Such reasoning contrary to settled law – High Court sets aside judgment of Appellate Court and restores dismissal of suit [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 23.01.2006 passed by Additional District Judge-II, Jind set aside – Termination of respondent upheld – No costs [Paras 14-15].

Civil Law – Execution Proceedings – Maintainability – Writ petition filed challenging impugned order in I.A. under Order XXI Rules 97–105 CPC in execution proceedings before Commercial Court – Held: Writ not maintainable when statutory remedy of Commercial Appeal available – Petitioner permitted to convert writ petition into Commercial Appeal under Section 37 of Commercial Courts Act – Registry directed to hand over case file for filing of appeal [Paras 6, 7, 9]

Interim Relief – Jurisdiction of Single Judge – Prayer for extension of interim order refused – Held: In absence of maintainable writ petition, Single Judge cannot continue interim relief – Petitioner granted liberty to seek interim relief before Division Bench upon filing of Commercial Appeal [Paras 7, 8]

Practice and Procedure – Statutory Remedy – When specific remedy of appeal exists under Commercial Courts Act, writ petition under Articles 226/227 not sustainable – Reliance placed on precedents from Division Bench and Single Bench decisions of Karnataka High Court [Para 5]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of as not maintainable – Petitioner permitted to convert it into a Commercial Appeal – Liberty granted to seek interim relief before Division Bench – Registry directed to immediately transfer the case file to facilitate filing of appeal [Paras 6–9]