Civil Law – Partition Suit – Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Plaintiff sought partition of properties belonging to deceased parents but failed to implead all legal heirs including five sisters – Held: Suit not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties in a claim based on intestate succession – All co-heirs must be before court in a partition suit [Paras 24-29]

Court Fees – Valuation of Suit – Plaintiff undervalued properties in amended plaint by reducing earlier declared valuation – Held: Suit improperly valued – Appropriate court fee not paid – Issue decided against plaintiff [Paras 31-36]

Succession – Will – Validity and Genuineness – Will dated 12.10.2001 executed by Smt. Krishna Wanti in favour of husband – One attesting witness (son) examined – No suspicious circumstances proved – Held: Will validly executed under Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Bequest to spouse not unnatural [Paras 37-57]

Probate – Will of Sh. Hans Raj Gulati – Objections rejected – Will dated 30.05.2003 registered and witnessed – Attesting witness and Sub-Registrar examined – Delay of 7 years in filing probate not fatal as right accrued in 2009 upon amendment of plaint – No proof of mental incapacity or alternative Will – Held: Will valid and genuine – Probate granted [Paras 58-111]

Limitation – Probate Petition – Right to apply accrues when necessity arises – Filing within 3 years of amendment to plaint found within limitation under Article 137 – Continuous right to apply upheld [Paras 80-85]

Evidence – Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of daughters in Will not suspicious – No evidence of coercion or fraud – Objectors failed to prove existence or contents of alleged torn Will – Hearsay inadmissible – No proof of alternate testament [Paras 86-103]

Relief – Partition Suit dismissed – Plaintiff found to have no share in properties – Probate petition allowed – Petitioners granted letters of administration upon compliance [Paras 112-117]

Decision: CS(OS) 2159/2002 dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and undervaluation – Plaintiff held to have no share in suit properties – TEST.CAS. 90/2014 allowed – Will dated 30.05.2003 of Hans Raj Gulati upheld – Petitioners entitled to probate and letters of administration subject to formalities – No order as to costs.

Land Acquisition – Lapse under Section 11-A – Delay in Award – No Lapse If Delay Caused by Court Stay – Petitioner claimed acquisition lapsed as award under Section 11 was made more than 11 years after Section 6 declaration – Held: Delay was due to stay orders obtained by adjacent landowners – Exclusion of stay period justified award being within 2-year limitation – Acquisition not deemed lapsed [Paras 13–18, 20]

Subsequent Purchaser – Lack of Locus to Challenge Acquisition – Petitioner acquired property via settlement deed in 2012, long after Section 4 notification (1989), Section 6 declaration (1990), and award (2001) – Court held that petitioner, as subsequent purchaser, could not question validity of completed acquisition [Paras 14–15, 20]

Revenue Records – Patta Mutation – Not Binding on Title – Petitioner relied on patta in her name to assert ownership – Held: Patta mutation behind petitioner’s back had been remitted for reconsideration – But ownership claim could not override completed acquisition process [Para 19]

Common Acquisition Notification – Stay in One Case Binds Others – Relying on Abhey Ram, Om Prakash, and other Supreme Court decisions – Held: Interim stay obtained by some landowners under a common acquisition notification binds authorities from proceeding further, even against other landowners who did not obtain stay – Authorities justified in not passing award during such period [Paras 16–18]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No lapse of acquisition proceedings – Petitioner, as post-acquisition title holder, cannot claim title against Housing Board – No costs – Connected writ miscellaneous petitions also closed [Paras 20–21]

Maintainability – Writ Appeal by Statutory Committee – Quasi-judicial authority not “aggrieved” – Admission Supervisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of Act 15 of 2017 passed orders withholding and cancelling admission under OBC category – Single Judge set aside Committee’s orders and declared student eligible – Committee filed writ appeal – Held: Committee’s functions under Section 8 are adjudicatory with Civil Court-like powers under Section 8(3) – Beneficiaries/adversely affected persons are third parties and not the adjudicator – Adjudicating authority cannot challenge superior court’s interference with its quasi-judicial orders – allowing such appeals would undermine judicial discipline and create anomalous situation of adjudicators routinely appealing adverse decisions – Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1, 5, 9, 13, 17-18, 20].

Medical Education Admissions – Admission Supervisory Committee – Nature of powers – Section 8 Act 15 of 2017 – Committee’s role includes inquiry into complaints/suo motu action and recommendations including declaration of admissions invalid – powers of Civil Court while conducting inquiry – Held: such statutory scheme indicates adjudicatory and not ministerial character – Committee’s decisions under Section 8 operate as quasi-judicial orders [Paras 9, 13, 17].

Judicial Discipline – Adjudicating authority’s locus to litigate – Proper party vs aggrieved party – Committee was arrayed as respondent in writ petition challenging its orders – Held: mere impleadment does not create duty/right in adjudicator to defend its own decision through appeal – decision may be supported/challenged by persons benefited/adversely affected or by appropriate official respondents having duty to ensure fair admissions – Committee itself cannot be appellant against setting aside of its orders [Paras 18-19].

Statutory Appeal under Section 12 Act 15 of 2017 – Practical filing as writ petitions due to procedural vacuum – Court noted administrative history: nomenclature MFA(KME) introduced, but Division Bench earlier directed return of such appeals due to absence of rules on certified copy/court-fee etc – despite 2021 Rules, appeal procedure still not provided – hence writ petitions continue to be treated as maintainable against committee orders and are rostered to Single Bench under education subject codes – However, this does not confer appellate locus on Committee as adjudicator [Paras 14-16, 18].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Para 20].

Civil Law – Partnership Firms – Abatement – Appeal by firm – Whether second appeal abates upon death of partner – Suit was instituted against partnership firm under Order 30 CPC without impleading partners personally – One partner died during suit, another during pendency of second appeal – Held: Under Order XXX Rule 4(1) CPC, substitution of legal representatives not necessary – Appeal does not abate for non-substitution of deceased partners [Paras 19–24, 28–30, 42]

Partnership Law – Dissolution and Reconstitution – Firm originally had two partners – Death of one partner does not ipso facto dissolve firm where reconstitution occurs and new partners inducted before retirement of existing ones – Respondent’s own conduct in filing contempt petition against new partners evidences knowledge and implied acceptance of firm’s continued existence – Held: Firm validly reconstituted, and appeal maintainable in name of firm [Paras 34–39]

Procedural Law – Application for Abatement – Maintainability – Respondent sought dismissal of appeal on ground of abatement due to death of partner – Court found respondent failed to apply for particulars of firm’s partners under Order XXX Rule 1 – Also admitted reconstitution in prior proceedings – Held: Abatement application rejected – Appeal can proceed through present partners [Paras 33, 38–42, 49]

Judicial Discipline – Refusal of Stay – Despite request by respondent to stay order rejecting abatement application, Court declined stay citing earlier Supreme Court direction for time-bound disposal of appeal – However, in interest of justice, hearing deferred for limited time to allow respondent to seek relief from Supreme Court [Later Order, Para 50]

Decision: CAN 11 of 2025 (Application for abatement) rejected – CAN 12 of 2025 (Application to proceed through existing partners) allowed – Second appeal to proceed in the name of the firm – Appeal not abated under Order XXX CPC – No stay of order granted – Matter listed for further hearing on 28/01/2026 [Paras 49–50]

Civil Writ - Fair Price Shop – Misappropriation of Food Grains – Scope of Revision under Clause 24 – Respondent No.5 was found guilty by District Supply Officer (DSO) of misappropriating wheat (22.6 quintals), rice (11.36 quintals), and pulses, and violating other regulatory requirements – DSO passed order cancelling authorization and forfeiting security deposit – Revision before Deputy Commissioner dismissed, confirming findings of irregularity – Second revision allowed by Hon’ble Minister without recording finding on legality or propriety – Held: Minister exceeded revisional jurisdiction under Clause 24(1) by setting aside findings without examining their correctness – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 3–5, 13–16]

Consumer Rights – Locus of Complainants – Preliminary objection raised that original complainants (ration cardholders) have no locus to challenge Minister’s order – Rejected – Held: Under Distribution Order, 1975, complainants have standing to challenge revisional orders unlike under Licensing Order, 1979 – Judgment in Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre followed – Supreme Court ruling in Vishvas not applicable as it related to Licensing Order [Paras 6–10]

Revisional Powers – Jurisdictional Error – Hon’ble Minister ordered fresh enquiry and reinstatement of authorization based on general statements from cardholders and respondent’s long-standing service – Held: Revisional authority must record findings on legality, propriety, or irregularity of prior orders – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable and beyond jurisdiction [Paras 14–16]

Subsequent Events – Fresh Enquiry – Respondent No.5 relied on post-order enquiry showing no current complaints – Held: Subsequent developments irrelevant where earlier findings of misappropriation were unaddressed by revisional authority – Fresh material not part of record and cannot justify flawed revisional order [Para 12]

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Order dated 19/07/2021 passed by Hon’ble Minister quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to Hon’ble Minister to decide revision afresh after recording findings on allegations of misappropriation – Respondent No.5 to continue operating fair price shop unless otherwise barred – Revision to be decided preferably before 31/05/2026 [Para 17]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a housing redevelopment project – Petitioners, allegedly acting in concert, misrepresented ownership and control over two flats and induced complainant to invest Rs.1.91 crores – Despite MoUs and arbitral proceedings, FIR disclosed cognizable offences – Custodial interrogation held necessary in light of allegations of forged representations and financial misappropriation – Bail applications dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 7, 20-24]

Cheating – Misrepresentation of Ownership – Petitioners claimed to represent 11 flats before Arbitrator, though they owned only 9 – Two flats allegedly belonged to complainant, who was not party to arbitral proceedings – Petitioners knew complainant paid Rs.1.91 crores, but falsely recorded Rs. 40 lakhs – Allegations of deliberate misrepresentation found plausible at this stage [Paras 6, 15, 21]

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Economic Offences – Supreme Court rulings relied upon to highlight seriousness of economic offences – Held: Custodial interrogation of petitioners necessary to trace money trail and examine alleged conspiracy – Protection under anticipatory bail would obstruct further investigation [Paras 22-23]

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Petitioners argued dispute was civil and settlements were executed – Court held such documents do not negate FIR allegations at this stage – Matter involves serious allegations of inducement, fraud, and misuse of investor funds – Civil proceedings do not preclude parallel criminal liability [Paras 10-11, 21]

Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Custodial interrogation held necessary in view of serious economic offences and prima facie material suggesting conspiracy, misrepresentation, and financial misappropriation – Observations in judgment confined to bail issue only [Paras 24-26]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act – Rebuttal by Accused – Standard of Proof – Accused admitted signature on cheque but set up defence that cheque was part of multiple cheques issued for chit transaction to a third party – Defence supported by reply notices and contemporaneous documents – Held: Accused need only raise a probable defence and not prove it beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption successfully rebutted on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 12, 15–19].

Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Onus on Complainant – Complainant claimed cash loan of ₹5,00,000/- without documentary proof – Failure to disclose source of funds in statutory notice – Contradictory deposition regarding who sought the loan – Held: Once financial capacity is disputed, burden shifts back to complainant – Failure to prove capacity weakens prosecution case [Paras 7, 12, 19].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Transaction allegedly routed through intermediary (R. Venkateshappa) – Complainant admitted no difficulty in examining said person – Same counsel represented complainant and intermediary in connected proceedings – Held: Non-examination of crucial intermediary, despite defence specifically alleging misuse of cheque, is a material omission attracting adverse inference and probabilising defence [Paras 18–19].

Appreciation of Evidence – Perverse Findings – Courts below proceeded solely on admission of signature on cheque – Ignored contradictions in complainant’s testimony, reply notices and defence evidence – Held: Failure to consider entire material on record renders findings perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2016 and 17.04.2021 set aside – Petitioner/accused acquitted of offence under Section 138 NI Act – Bail and surety bonds discharged.

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 17B – Payment of Wages During Pendency of Writ – Respondent workman terminated in 2002 – Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages – Writ petition filed by employer, stay granted in 2007 – Workman filed application under Section 17B in 2018, claiming unemployment – Employer failed to rebut affidavit denying gainful employment – Held: Workman entitled to last drawn or minimum wages from date of application (07.05.2018) till date of superannuation in 2023 [Paras 1-3, 10-11, 15-19]

Delay – Effect on 17B Relief – Delay of 12 years in filing 17B application explained as due to financial hardship – Court declined retrospective relief but allowed limited relief from date of application till superannuation – No bar on relief under 17B merely on account of delay where unemployment established and not rebutted [Paras 5, 10, 18-19]

Employer's Burden – Rebutting Affidavit of Unemployment – Once workman filed affidavit of unemployment, burden shifted to employer to prove gainful employment – Mere assertions insufficient – No proof adduced by employer – Held: Workman entitled to protection under Section 17B [Paras 12-14, 16]

Scope of Court’s Power under Section 17B – Court must grant interim relief where statutory conditions are satisfied – Merits of main case not relevant at interim stage – Minimum wages can be awarded in place of last drawn wages in appropriate cases [Paras 17-18]

Decision: Application under Section 17B allowed in part – Respondent entitled to last drawn or minimum wages (whichever is higher) from 07.05.2018 till deemed superannuation in 2023 – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Monthly payment to continue till 2023 as per direction – Writ petition to remain pending [Paras 19-21]

Labour Law – Gratuity – Limitation – Application filed after 2–3 years of retirement – Held: No limitation prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Rules cannot override statutory right – Rule 7(5) of the Central Rules clarifies that delayed claims are not invalid – Delay does not defeat the right to gratuity under a beneficial social welfare legislation [Paras 8–10].

Principal Employer – Liability for Gratuity – Contractual Employment – Petitioners argued workers were contractor’s employees – Court held contracts were a camouflage as workers served continuously for over 20 years despite changing contractors – Principal employer liable to pay gratuity under Section 21(4) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Right to recover from contractors preserved [Paras 13–16].

Wages – Definition – Gratuity Included – As per Section 2(vi)(d) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, gratuity payable on termination of employment is part of "wages" – Hence, principal employer’s statutory obligation includes gratuity as wage component under applicable labour laws [Paras 17–18].

Interest on Delayed Gratuity – Held: Under Section 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employer is liable to pay interest from date gratuity becomes payable (i.e., from date of retirement), not from date of application – Interest rightly awarded from date of superannuation till payment [Paras 21–22].

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Gratuity as Property – Gratuity is a vested right and recognized as property under Article 300A of the Constitution – Cannot be denied except by authority of law – Delay or contractual arrangement cannot justify withholding payment [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Orders of Controlling and Appellate Authorities upheld – Respondents entitled to withdraw deposited gratuity amounts and recover any deficit – Principal employer liable to pay and may recover from contractors where applicable.