Criminal Law – Section 323 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Conviction Unsustainable in Absence of Medical Evidence – Appellants convicted under Section 323 IPC – No medical evidence or doctor's testimony produced – No proof of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity as defined under Section 319 IPC – Held: Failure to prove nature and extent of injuries renders prosecution case incomplete – Benefit of doubt must be extended to accused [Paras 6–10]

Witness Testimony – Uncorroborated and Uncross-Examined Injured Witnesses – P.W.1 and P.W.4 claimed to be injured but not cross-examined – Absence of corroboration through medical report and lack of specific attribution of role to each accused – Held: Mere oral allegations without supporting evidence insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 323 IPC [Paras 7–10]

Non-Examination of Investigating Officer – Effect on Prosecution – Investigating Officer not examined – No contradictions elicited from witnesses – Held: While not fatal per se, non-examination of IO when combined with other lapses (absence of medical proof, general allegations) cumulatively weakens prosecution case [Paras 4, 6, 8–10]

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to prove individual culpability of each accused – No clear evidence linking specific acts of assault to particular accused – Held: Prosecution evidence vague and non-specific – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted giving benefit of doubt [Paras 10–11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2007 passed by Special Judge, Keonjhar in Special Case No. 19 of 1999 set aside – Accused-appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal appeal disposed of.

Service Law – Regularization – Daily Wage / Casual Employees – Long Continuous Service – Forest Department, Haryana – Petitioners engaged as casual labour / daily wagers since around year 2000 – Services illegally terminated – Labour Court awards directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages – Awards upheld by High Court and attained finality – Petitioners sought regularization under Haryana Regularization Policies dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 – Claims rejected by Department citing lack of sanctioned posts, non-compliance with recruitment rules, alleged breaks in service and withdrawal of policy – Held: Petitioners entitled to consideration and regularization [Paras 2–3, 16–42].

Labour Court Award – Continuity of Service – Legal Effect – Restitutio ad Integrum – Award of reinstatement with continuity of service is not symbolic but restores employee to uninterrupted service for all consequential benefits – Employer estopped from disputing length or nature of service after judicial affirmation – Continuity obliterates illegal termination and condones breaks not attributable to employee – State cannot indirectly nullify binding judicial determinations [Paras 17–22].

Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 & 10.02.2004 – Accrued and Crystallised Rights – Policy prescribed eligibility of daily wage Group-D employees completing three years’ service as on 30.09.2003 with 240 days’ work per year – Petitioners fulfilled all substantive conditions while policy was in force – Withdrawal of policy in 2007 cannot retrospectively extinguish accrued rights – Right to consideration stood crystallised once eligibility conditions were fulfilled [Paras 23–38].

Uma Devi Doctrine – Scope and Limitations – Misapplication by State – Ratio in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi aimed at preventing illegal backdoor appointments – Not intended to deny regularization to employees with long uninterrupted service under State’s knowledge – Distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments emphasized – Mechanical reliance on Uma Devi to defeat parity-based and policy-based claims deprecated [Paras 39–56].

Parity and Non-Discrimination – Articles 14 & 16 – Hostile Discrimination – Petitioners demonstrated that similarly situated and even junior employees were regularized by the Department – State failed to show intelligible differentia – Selective denial of benefit held arbitrary and discriminatory – Equality clause mandates similar treatment to similarly placed employees [Paras 43–49].

Legitimate Expectation – Welfare State Obligation – Model Employer Doctrine – Long continuation of service under State creates legitimate expectation of regularization – State as model employer cannot exploit vulnerable workforce by keeping them perpetually temporary – Withdrawal of beneficial schemes cannot defeat legitimate expectation where State’s inaction caused delay [Paras 33–34, 62].

Delay and Laches – Non-Communication of Rejection Order – Impugned order dated 13.11.2020 never communicated to petitioners – Petitioners gained knowledge only during contempt proceedings – Delay attributable to State – Doctrine of laches inapplicable where impugned action not disclosed to affected party [Paras 64–65].

Creation of Posts – Judicial Restraint – Direction Limited to Policy Consideration – Court reiterated it cannot direct creation or sanction of posts – However, State bound to act fairly within existing policy framework – Direction issued to regularize petitioners under 2003–2004 Policy without compelling creation of posts [Para 65].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Orders rejecting regularization set aside – Respondents directed to regularize petitioners under Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 as amended on 10.02.2004 – Regularization to be granted within one month – Petitioners entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears with interest @ 6% per annum – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Suit filed in 1995 based on major settlement RoR – Amendment sought in 2025 to introduce consolidation plot number for plaintiffs’ land alone – High Court held that such amendment at argument stage without including defendants’ corresponding plot from consolidation records would cause prejudice – Held: Amendment not essential for adjudication and likely to complicate proceedings – Impugned order allowing amendment set aside [Paras 2–9]

Pleadings – Principles Governing Amendment – Reference to Chakreshwari Construction case – Court reiterated that amendments must not fundamentally alter the nature of the case or prejudice the opposite party – Amendment must be necessary, bona fide, and non-prejudicial – Proposed amendment failed on these counts – Suit can be adjudicated on basis of original settlement records alone [Paras 6–9]

Delay and Procedural Fairness – Suit delayed due to remand after decree – No explanation for belated amendment – Consolidation RoR came into effect during pendency but was not relied on earlier – Selective reference to new land records without matching updates for both parties held unfair – Amendment termed unnecessary and likely to trigger further procedural complexity [Paras 5–9]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – Order dated 09.10.2025 passed by Gram Nyayalaya allowing amendment set aside – Amendment application rejected

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Homicidal Death – The deceased was found in a half-naked condition with multiple injuries including head and brain injuries, abrasions, and nail marks – Post-mortem report and medical officer's testimony confirmed ante-mortem injuries and cause of death due to head and brain injury – The Court found the homicidal nature of death and sexual assault to be conclusively proven by medical and ocular evidence – Findings of the trial court regarding homicidal death and rape upheld [Paras 8, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.8].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Principles of Conviction – The case was based on circumstantial evidence, requiring the prosecution to establish a complete chain of events pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused – The Court reiterated the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) and other Supreme Court precedents – Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof – The prosecution must elevate its case from "may be true" to "must be true" – The Court meticulously analyzed each circumstance to ensure consistency with the hypothesis of guilt and exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis [Paras 9, 10].

Criminal Law – Rape – Section 376 IPC – Gang Rape – Circumstantial Evidence – The deceased left home to tie Rakhi, did not return, and her half-naked dead body was found in putus bushes near an embankment with dragging marks – P.W.9 saw appellant Kathu Karua naked in the bushes where the deceased's body was found, and heard shrieks – Extrajudicial confession of Kathu Karua to villagers, corroborated by the presence of human blood of Group 'A' (matching deceased's blood) on his seized nicker, formed a complete chain of circumstances – These circumstances cogently and firmly established the guilt of appellant Kathu Karua for gang rape and murder – Conviction of Kathu Karua under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 12].

Criminal Law – Extrajudicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – Extrajudicial confession, though a weak piece of evidence, can form the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence, is voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by other independent reliable evidence – The Court found P.W.5, P.W.7, and P.W.8's testimonies regarding Kathu Karua's extrajudicial confession to be credible, despite P.W.4's contradictions and P.W.5 mentioning slaps, as there was no evidence of inducement, threat, or promise – The confession was corroborated by other strong circumstantial evidence – Extrajudicial confession of Kathu Karua accepted [Paras 10.7, 10.8].

Criminal Law – Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto but can be accepted to the extent it is dependable on careful scrutiny and consistent with the prosecution or defence case – P.W.9, though declared hostile, provided crucial evidence against appellant Kathu Karua regarding his presence at the scene in a naked condition near the deceased's body – His testimony, not completely shaken in cross-examination, was relied upon against Kathu Karua – The Court found P.W.9's evidence against appellant Ramesh Apat insufficient to implicate him [Para 10.6].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Acquittal of Co-accused – The trial court acquitted co-accused Dadu @ Anil Patra due to lack of corroborative evidence beyond his police confession and the appellants' confessions – The High Court found no evidence of common intention for appellant Ramesh Apat, as his presence at the embankment was explained as chasing goats, and no extrajudicial confession was made by him – The conviction of Ramesh Apat based solely on Kathu Karua's extrajudicial confession was deemed unsustainable – Conviction of Ramesh Apat set aside [Paras 6, 10.6, 10.7, 11].

Criminal Law – Disappearance of Evidence – Section 201 IPC – The appellant Kathu Karua, after committing rape, killed the deceased to wipe out evidence and screen himself from legal punishment – This act falls squarely under Section 201 IPC – Conviction of Kathu Karua under Section 201 IPC upheld [Para 12].

Sentence – Confirmation – The sentence of R.I. for ten years for Section 376(2)(g) IPC, R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for Section 302/34 IPC, and R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for Section 201/34 IPC, with all sentences running concurrently, imposed on Kathu Karua by the trial court, was confirmed by the High Court – The appellant Kathu Karua was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence [Para 12].

Decision: JCRLA No.58 of 2006 (Kathu Karua) dismissed – CRLA No.450 of 2005 (Ramesh Apat) allowed – Conviction of Kathu Karua upheld under Sections 376, 302 & 201 IPC – Conviction of Ramesh Apat set aside and he is acquitted of all charges – Kathu Karua to surrender within two weeks to serve sentence, failing which coercive steps to be taken – Ramesh Apat discharged from bail bonds [Para 12].

Co-operative Law – Review Jurisdiction – Reference to Larger Bench – Review petition filed against judgment restoring money decree passed by Co-operative Court – Review based on subsequent coordinate Bench decision holding that Co-operative Courts lack jurisdiction for recovery above ₹10 lakh – Court held that issue raises substantial questions of law requiring authoritative determination – Matter referred to larger Bench instead of deciding review on merits [Paras 1, 75–79].

Banking Law – Co-operative Banks – Applicability of RDB Act – Core issue whether State co-operative banks fall within definition of “bank” under Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of RDB Act – Petitioner relying on Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule contended that co-operative banks are banking companies and must approach DRT exclusively – Respondents contended that said judgment was confined to SARFAESI Act and did not extend RDB Act to State co-operative banks – Court held issue remains unresolved [Paras 2, 33–48].

Jurisdiction – Conflict between Central and State Laws – Section 91 MCS Act vs. Sections 17 & 18 RDB Act – Whether recovery proceedings by State co-operative banks before Co-operative Courts stand barred by RDB Act – Court noted absence of express inclusion of State co-operative banks under RDB Act, contrasted with express inclusion of multi-State co-operative banks – Held that jurisdictional exclusion cannot be conclusively determined without larger Bench ruling [Paras 49–71].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Entries 45 List I and 32 List II – Banking and recovery of bank dues fall under Entry 45 (Union List), while co-operative societies fall under Entry 32 (State List) – Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule weakened constitutional foundation of Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank but did not expressly overrule its conclusions on RDB Act – Striking down of Part IX-B in Rajendra N. Shah further complicates analysis – Issue held fit for reference [Paras 72–75].

Precedent – Overruling by Implication – Limits – Court reiterated that judgments cannot be treated as overruled by implication unless irreconcilable conflict exists on same issue – Held that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule does not expressly overrule Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank on applicability of RDB Act – Coordinate Bench decision in Washim Urban raises debatable legal position [Paras 22–48].

Procedure – Reference under Appellate Side Rules – Exercising powers under Chapter I Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Court referred substantial question of law to Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench – Review petition to remain pending till reference is answered [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Question of law referred to larger Bench – Review Petition kept pending – Registry directed to place papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Matter to be decided in accordance with law laid down by larger Bench [Paras 76–79].

Civil Law – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Rejection of Plaint – At the stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only averments contained in the plaint are to be considered – Defence of the defendant or disputed questions of fact cannot be examined – Issues requiring evidence cannot be decided summarily [Paras 6–7].

Rent Control – Ejectment Petition – Alleged Prior Vacation of Premises – Tenant pleaded that premises were vacated prior to filing of ejectment petition – Landlord denied said assertion – Held: Whether tenant had vacated premises is a pure question of fact requiring evidence – Cannot be a ground for rejection of rent petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 2, 6].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 6 – Applicability – Eviction Proceedings – Dispute arising out of landlord-tenant relationship, even relating to commercial premises, does not fall within definition of “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act – Eviction proceedings under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act not barred or transferred to Commercial Courts [Paras 3, 8].

Jurisdiction – Rent Controller – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is a special statute creating exclusive forum – Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain eviction petition irrespective of residential or commercial use of premises [Para 8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court will not interfere with interlocutory orders unless patent illegality or perversity shown – Application under Order VII Rule 11 found to be filed only to delay proceedings – No ground made out for interference [Paras 6, 9].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Order dated 19.11.2025 dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC upheld – Rent proceedings to continue in accordance with law – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 9–10].

Arbitration – Appeal under Section 37 – Maintainability – Ad-interim injunction – Appellants challenged an ad-interim order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 directing parties to maintain status quo ante – Office raised objection on maintainability under Section 37(1)(b) as petition was still pending – Held: Order amounts to granting an interim measure under Section 9 – Covered under Section 37(1)(b) – Appeal maintainable [Paras 5, 6, 11, 17–18, 25, 31–32].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1) – Scope of Appeal – Commercial Court's interim order under Section 9 of Arbitration Act can be appealed if it falls under Section 37(1)(b) or Order 43 CPC – Held: Section 13 does not create independent right of appeal but facilitates appeal where it lies under Section 37 or Order 43 – Ad-interim injunction appealable if extraordinary circumstance shown [Paras 15, 28–30].

Interim Injunction – Appeal against Ad-Interim Order – Principles – Court referred to Innovative Pharma Surgicals and A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu cases – Held: Appeal against ad-interim injunction maintainable in extraordinary circumstances such as delay or inaction in hearing vacation application – Interim order having serious consequences cannot be treated as non-appealable merely due to its interim nature [Paras 21–24].

Divergence from Other High Courts – Meghalaya High Court view in NTPC v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Ltd. that ad-interim orders are non-appealable under Section 37(1)(b) was not accepted – Andhra Pradesh High Court held ad-interim injunctions falling within the scope of Section 9 are appealable under Section 37 [Paras 26–28].

Civil Procedure – Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Ad-interim injunction granted under Order 39 is appealable – Same principle applies to ad-interim orders under Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Harmonious construction with Section 104 CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act warranted [Paras 20, 24].

Decision: Office objection overruled – Appeal held maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Matter directed to be numbered – Appeal to be posted for further hearing on 30/12/2025.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Public Servant – Abuse of Position – Petitioner, a former Tahsildar, accused of illegally and hastily converting forest land for industrial use without due compliance of rules and forest clearance – Allegations supported by official enquiry and statements under Section 161 CrPC – Held: No mala fide in registration of FIR – Disciplinary exoneration cannot override findings in criminal proceedings – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 13–14, 19–22]

Corruption – PC Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Dishonest Intent – Petitioner argued that he acted in good faith relying on Revenue Inspector’s report and gained no pecuniary advantage – Court held: Conversion order passed with undue haste before bifurcation of Tahasil; lack of direct pecuniary benefit irrelevant when favour is conferred without public interest – Prima facie case made out for trial – No grounds for quashing [Paras 5, 15–16, 18]

Criminal Procedure – Standard of Proof – Disciplinary Proceedings vs Criminal Prosecution – Petitioner exonerated in departmental proceedings on ground of good faith – Court held: Disciplinary findings not binding on criminal court – Proceedings based on separate legal standards – No bar on continuation of trial [Paras 6, 19, 21]

Forest Conservation Act – Section 3B – Liability of Government Officials – Petitioner as Tahsildar held liable for illegal conversion without prior forest clearance – Held: Conversion granted without due diligence and verification; allegations support culpability under FC Act – No ground to interfere under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 2–4, 18]

Inherent Powers – Abuse of Process – Delay in Trial – Petitioner claimed continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of court’s process – Court held: Long pendency alone not ground for quashing where material indicates commission of cognizable offence – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 13, 22–24]

Decision: Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – FIR, chargesheet and pending proceedings in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 53 of 2010 (TR Case No. 08 of 2018) to continue – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

Taxation Law - Income-tax – Reassessment – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Notices issued under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 invoking TOLA – Validity – Petitioner challenged notice issued under Section 148 pursuant to reassessment proceedings initiated after introduction of Section 148A – Assessing Officer relied on extension of limitation under TOLA and judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal – Held: For A.Y. 2015–2016, reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are barred by limitation in view of amended Section 149 – Revenue conceded before Supreme Court that such notices cannot survive – Notices issued during extended period under TOLA declared invalid [Paras 2–5, 9, 17].

Income-tax – Reassessment Procedure – Section 148A(b) and 148A(d) – Effect of Ashish Agarwal decision – Notices originally issued under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 deemed to be notices under Section 148A(b) – Subsequent orders under Section 148A(d) and fresh notices under Section 148 issued in July 2022 – Held: Even after following procedure under Section 148A, reassessment is impermissible if limitation under Section 149 has expired – Procedural compliance cannot cure substantive bar of limitation [Paras 3, 5, 16].

Limitation – Section 149 – Interaction with TOLA – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Three-year limitation expired on 31.03.2019 and six-year period expired on 31.03.2022 – TOLA cannot revive dead and time-barred proceedings – Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal conclusively held that reassessment for A.Y. 2015–2016 after 01.04.2021 is impermissible – Same principle reiterated in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. – Applied and followed [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Concession – Revenue’s categorical concession before Supreme Court that all notices for A.Y. 2015–2016 issued on or after 01.04.2021 must be dropped – High Court bound to apply law declared and concession recorded by Apex Court – Impugned notice quashed accordingly [Paras 9–11, 17].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2015–2016 quashed and set aside – Reassessment proceedings held to be invalid and time-barred – Petition disposed of.