Probate – Validity of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Will Upheld – Appellant-objector (son of testator) challenged probate granted to respondent no. 1 alleging that the testator had already sold the property via documents dated 30.04.1998 – Trial court found Will dated 14.09.1998 valid and genuine – Appellant failed to prove due execution or consideration of sale documents – Held: Execution of registered Will proved through attesting witnesses – No concrete suspicious circumstances established – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6-8, 10-14, 19-24]

Indian Succession Act – Burden of Proof – Attesting Witnesses – Proof of Will – Petitioner examined two attesting witnesses and official from Sub-Registrar’s office – Will was registered and read over to the testator in his vernacular – Testator was in sound mind – Held: Statutory requirements of Section 63 of ISA and Section 68 of Evidence Act fulfilled – No material infirmity found in witness testimony to invalidate Will [Paras 10-12]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 53-A – Protection of Possession – Claim Rejected – Appellant relied on agreement to sell, power of attorney, and other documents dated 30.04.1998 – Admitted no registered sale deed and no proof of payment of ₹1,00,000 consideration – Held: Unregistered sale documents confer no title – No right to prevent testator from executing Will – Appellant failed to establish claim under Section 53-A TPA [Paras 6, 23]

Family Dispute – Disinheritance – Testamentary Intention – Evidence showed strained relations between testator and appellant – Testator disowned appellant in the Will, citing reasons such as misconduct, refusal to pay maintenance, and legal harassment – Held: Will reflected clear, conscious intent to exclude appellant – Presence of family discord did not create suspicious circumstance – Supported by mother and sister of appellant who raised no objection [Paras 11, 24]

Suspicious Circumstances – Mere Presence of Beneficiary – Inconsistent Witness Statements – Held: Mere presence of beneficiary during execution or registration of Will not suspicious per se – Inconsistencies in witness deposition regarding mode of travel and drafting sequence immaterial – Appellant failed to plead or prove undue influence or coercion – Burden not discharged [Paras 19, 22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment granting probate upheld – No infirmity found in trial court's findings – Pending applications closed [Paras 25, 26]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Attempt to Murder – Petitioner-husband sought quashing of Sessions Case No.20 of 2024 under Sections 324, 326, 307 IPC on the basis of compromise deed with wife (Respondent No.3), the complainant – Allegations related to physical assault with knife – Chargesheet filed, but during trial parties amicably settled the matter through mediation and executed compromise on 11.08.2025 – Held: Though offence under Section 307 IPC is serious and non-compoundable, Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC where parties settle disputes of personal nature voluntarily – No public interest involved – Allegations arose from domestic quarrel with no premeditated intent – Proceedings quashed to secure ends of justice and restore peace between spouses [Paras 2–4, 7–11].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Offences of personal nature – Reliance placed on Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 10 SCC 303 and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. (2025) 4 SCC 78 – Court noted that many domestic disputes are wrongly escalated under Section 307 IPC – In the present case, compromise was genuine, voluntary and aimed at rebuilding marital relationship – Continuation of proceedings would be counterproductive – Held: High Court's inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure justice [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Sessions Case No. 20 of 2024 under Sections 324/326/307 IPC pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Shillong, quashed – Criminal petition allowed [Paras 12–13].

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act – Reinstatement vs. Lump-sum Compensation – Daily Wager in Irrigation Department – Labour Court granted reinstatement but denied full relief – Employee and State both challenged award – Held: Irrigation Department is an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the ID Act as settled by Supreme Court and Full Bench – State barred from repeatedly raising contrary plea [Paras 9–11].

Evidence – Completion of 240 Days – Burden of Proof – Workman entered witness box and deposed continuous service – Employer failed to produce muster rolls despite directions – Adverse inference rightly drawn against employer – Non-production of best evidence fatal to employer’s case [Paras 12–15].

Section 25B, 25F, 25G & 25H ID Act – Continuous Service – Retrenchment – Violation Established – Once breach of Sections 25G and 25H proved, plea of non-completion of 240 days loses significance – Termination held illegal [Paras 15, 19].

Judicial Review under Articles 226 & 227 – Scope – High Court not to re-appreciate evidence unless perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Labour Court’s findings based on evidence and settled law – No ground for interference in State’s petition [Paras 16, 19].

Parity – Similarly Situated Workmen – Coordinate Bench Decisions – Awards granting only compensation modified to reinstatement with continuity – Orders confirmed by Division Bench in multiple LPAs – Judicial discipline requires similar relief in identical facts [Paras 11–18].

Relief – Reinstatement with Continuity – Back Wages Denied – Labour Court award modified in line with precedent – Employee directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages – Reinstatement to be effected within three months – State’s petition dismissed [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Employee’s petition allowed – Labour Court award dated 05.01.2022 modified/confirmed to grant reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages – State’s petition dismissed – Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Scheduled Tribe Certificate – Tokre Koli – Pre-Constitutional Documentary Evidence – Interpolation Allegation – Committee’s Order Quashed – Petitioner’s tribe certificate was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground of interpolation in birth registers and school records – Court scrutinized the original records and found no substantial evidence of tampering – Held: Different handwriting and ink do not by themselves prove interpolation – Documents authored by various officers over decades carry probative value – Committee failed to obtain expert opinion or examine custodians of records [Paras 10-14, 17-20]

Scheduled Tribe Claim – Burden of Proof – Section 8 of the 2000 Act – Petitioner submitted consistent caste entries dating back to 1912 describing ancestors as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ – Both terms appear at same serial number in ST list – Held: Burden under Section 8 was discharged – Scrutiny Committee failed to produce any adverse evidence to rebut petitioner’s documents [Paras 18-19]

Tribal Classification – Koli Dhor vs Tokre Koli – Committee rejected claim on grounds of inconsistency – Court followed precedent in Samriddhi Yogesh Savale – Held: Where multiple consistent pre-constitutional entries refer to ‘Dhor Koli’ and post-constitutional to ‘Tokre Koli’, they are to be read as referring to the same ST classification under Entry 28 – Benefit of doubt goes to petitioner [Para 22]

Affinity Test – Evidentiary Value – Committee rejected claim citing failed affinity test – Court reaffirmed that affinity test is not conclusive and must be considered with other probative evidence – Held: Failure of affinity test not fatal where documentary evidence is otherwise strong [Para 23]

Quasi-Judicial Duty – Committee’s Failure to Consider Petitioner’s Reply – No Comparison of Handwriting – No Examination of Custodian Officers – Held: Committee failed to apply mind independently and acted solely on Vigilance Report without verifying facts or following proper procedure [Paras 16-18]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order quashed – Committee directed to issue Scheduled Tribe validity certificate to petitioner within 4 weeks [Para 24]

Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST (POA) Act – Appeal under Section 14A(2) – Alleged offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and BNS 2023 – FIR lodged by complainant alleging caste-based abuse and assault in public view – Appellant contended complaint was result of personal financial dispute and delay in lodging complaint unexplained – FIR filed nearly 2 years after alleged incidents – No prima facie material of abuse in public view – No injury suffered – Vehicle allegedly involved in assault not belonging to appellant – Held: No bar to grant of anticipatory bail under Section 18 of SC/ST Act – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 5, 8–10]

SC/ST Act – Section 18 – Bar on Anticipatory Bail – Scope – Complaint failed to disclose prima facie material showing caste-based abuse in public view – Held: Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act not attracted – Protection of anticipatory bail available [Para 9]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained Delay – Alleged incidents between April 2021 and September 2025 – Complaint filed only on 27.09.2025 – Delay of nearly two years not justified – Material facts not disclosed in initial complaint – Considered as material ground favouring bail [Paras 5, 9]

Bail – Grant of – Conditions Imposed – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and cooperation with investigation – Conditions imposed not to tamper with witnesses or commit similar offences [Para 10]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of trial court dated 29.10.2025 rejecting anticipatory bail set aside – Anticipatory bail granted to appellant subject to conditions.

Education Law – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Appellant challenged Director's order rejecting claim for promotion to 7th post of Lecturer in Physics – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition holding that statutory remedy under Section 24-B of Odisha Education Act was available before the Tribunal – Held: Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving eligibility and entitlement linked with grant-in-aid – Writ Court rightly declined to entertain the writ petition in light of specific statutory forum [Paras 1-6, 18-22]

Statutory Interpretation – Scope of Section 24-B of the O.E. Act – Dispute whether Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined only to “grant-in-aid” or extends to eligibility and entitlement for post approval and salary – Held: Legislative intent behind insertion of Section 24-B makes it clear that Tribunal’s power includes disputes concerning approval of posts, eligibility of appointment, and salary where such claims are related to grant-in-aid – Punctuation such as commas not decisive in interpreting statutory scope – Interpretation must serve purpose of amendment [Paras 7-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Statutory Remedy – Although High Court’s power under Article 226 is not ousted, writ jurisdiction may not be exercised where efficacious alternative remedy exists – Appellant previously approached Tribunal and cannot bypass it now – Forum shopping deprecated – Tribunal is competent forum to adjudicate disputes arising from administrative directions on post approval and salary [Paras 19-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error in learned Single Judge’s order relegating appellant to Odisha Education Tribunal – Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate challenge to rejection order dated 27.03.2025.

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Disqualification of Member of Parliament – Effect of Stay of Conviction – Petitioner sought Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 1 (Rahul Gandhi) on the ground of disqualification under Article 102 r/w Section 8(3) of the RP Act due to conviction in a defamation case – Held: Once the conviction is stayed by the Appellate Court (Supreme Court in this case), the disqualification arising out of such conviction ceases to operate from the date of the stay order. The conviction becomes non-operative, and the bar under Section 8(3) does not apply during the pendency of the appeal. – Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Election Law – Disqualification upon Conviction – Distinction between Stay of Sentence and Stay of Conviction – Held: There is a fundamental distinction between the stay of execution of sentence and the stay of conviction. Mere stay of sentence/bail does not wipe out the disqualification. However, when the conviction itself is stayed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 389 CrPC or inherent powers, the disqualification is kept in abeyance and the individual is not debarred from holding public office. [Para 13]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. [Para 20]

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Suit by Public Trust – Mandatory Consent Under MPT Act – Plaintiffs’ own pleadings and annexed documents repeatedly describing Defendant as “trustee/permanent trustee/erstwhile trustee” held decisive – Suit for recovery of compensation for misuse of trust property by a trustee falls squarely within Section 50 clauses (a), (e), (f), (p), (q) – Held: Without prior consent of Charity Commissioner under Section 51, suit is statutorily barred [Paras 11–18].

Trust Property – Recovery from Trustee – Section 50 MPT Act – Suit seeks recovery of compensation for occupation of trust property by Defendant during tenure as trustee – Documents (letters, opinions, correspondence) annexed to plaint addressing Defendant as trustee held to override later verbal assertions that he was a “trespasser” – Plaint averments read holistically demonstrate action against trustee for breach/misconduct, not trespass – Section 50 attracted [Paras 10–15].

Trespass Argument Rejected – Plaintiffs’ Case Inconsistent with Record – Plaintiffs’ attempt to classify Defendant as “rank trespasser” held untenable when plaint averments and exhibits consistently acknowledge him as trustee discharging obligations – Once trust itself admits fiduciary capacity, suit cannot be framed as simple trespass to bypass statutory requirement of consent [Paras 14–17].

Scope of Section 51 MPT Act – Consent Mandatory – When suit is of a nature specified under Section 50, plaintiffs must obtain Charity Commissioner’s prior written consent; Commissioner becomes necessary party – Absence of consent renders suit non-maintainable at inception – Bar attracts Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 16–18].

Pleadings Control O7R11(d) – Court Reiterates – For O7R11(d), plaint averments and plaint documents alone are considered – Defence cannot cure statutory bar – Here, plaint itself revealed suit to be one “relating to trustee” requiring consent; absence is fatal [Paras 7–12].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit held not maintainable without prior consent under Sections 50 & 51 MPT Act – Pending Interim Application No. 4005 of 2025 disposed [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law – Bail - Rape Allegation – Consent – Breach of Promise to Marry – Petitioner accused of offences under Sections 69 and 75(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS for allegedly refusing to marry the victim after a consensual relationship – Relationship between petitioner and respondent lasted over three years – Victim lodged complaint only after petitioner refused marriage – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, consensual relationship based on a genuine promise to marry, later not fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, does not amount to rape – FIR lacks allegations showing false promise from inception – No prima facie case under Section 69 BNS made out [Paras 3–14]

Bail – Principles for Grant – Promise to Marry – Consent and Misconception of Fact – Court relies on binding precedents from Supreme Court including Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Prithivirajan, Kunal Chatterjee, and Maheshwar Tigga – Held: Physical relations on the basis of a genuine promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it is proved that the promise was false from the beginning – Petitioner's prolonged relationship and absence of coercion negate allegation of misconception of fact – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 4–16]

Bail – Conditions Imposed – Accused directed to furnish bond with sureties and report weekly to police – Restrictions imposed on travel outside Andhra Pradesh and on influencing witnesses – Cooperation with investigation mandated [Para 16]

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Bail granted to the petitioner/accused on furnishing bond and subject to strict conditions including weekly reporting, restricted travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation.