Civil Law - Relocation & Rehabilitation Policy – Eligibility for alternate shop – Scope restricted to licensees, lessees, or Tehbazari holders – The appellant, not being a licensee, lessee, or Tehbazari holder, was not eligible for relocation benefits under the Delhi MRTS Project Policy – Held: Scheme was only applicable to shopkeepers having valid legal rights conferred by MCD/NDMC, not to encroachers [Paras 8-15].

 Promissory Estoppel – Applicability – Absence of unequivocal promise or representation – DMRC's proposal for rehabilitation was restricted to license holders – Appellant, lacking any license or recognized right, cannot invoke promissory estoppel against DMRC – Mere participation in the draw of lots and deposit of money did not create an enforceable right – Held: Appellant cannot claim benefit under promissory estoppel [Paras 15-33].  

Administrative File Notings – Value in judicial proceedings – DMRC's internal note of 20.04.2011 suggesting appellant's eligibility is merely an opinion – Held: Eligibility must be determined strictly under the policy and applicable law, not based on internal office notings – Such notings do not bind the corporation or confer any legal right [Para 37].  

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Appellant held ineligible under Relocation and Rehabilitation Policy – Principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation held inapplicable – Findings of the learned Single Judge upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 38-40].

Service Law - Payment of Gratuity – Abandonment vs. Resignation – Validity of Resignation Proven – Appellant claimed that respondent abandoned service and thus was not entitled to gratuity – Held: Resignation letter dated 10.04.2013 was duly received and acknowledged by petitioner – Plea of abandonment rejected – [Paras 10-12]. 
 
Jurisdiction – Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority – Earlier litigation confirmed Central Government as the competent authority under the Act – Appeal rightly decided by Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) – [Paras 2(v), 13]. 
 
Forfeiture of Gratuity – Applicability of Section 4(6) – No proven loss, damage, or misconduct – Held: Employer failed to prove any conditions attracting forfeiture under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Mere resignation does not disentitle an employee from gratuity – [Para 5]. 
 
Interest on Gratuity – Delay since 2013 – Private respondent entitled to statutory interest on the gratuity amount from the date it became due until payment – [Paras 8, 15]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Controlling and Appellate Authority’s orders upheld – Petitioner directed to pay Rs.3,63,461/- with statutory interest within 30 days – Application for stay rejected considering the long delay and social welfare nature of the legislation – [Paras 14-18]. 
 
 

Writ - Maintainability – Second Writ Petition After Withdrawal of First Without Liberty – Barred by Constructive Res Judicata - The appellant had earlier withdrawn CWJC No.19237 of 2015 without reserving liberty to refile – The second writ petition CWJC No.19359 of 2016 challenging the same cause was rightly held not maintainable by the Single Judge – Doctrine of election and principles laid down in Joint Action Committee vs. DGCA (2011) 5 SCC 435 and M.J. Exporters (2021) 13 SCC 543 applied [Paras 3-5]. 
 
Government Accommodation – No Vested Right Post-Resignation – Penal Rent Justified - Appellant, after resigning as MLA on 14.03.2014, continued to occupy Quarter No.3, Taylor Road till 12.05.2016 without valid allotment – Court held that the notification relied by appellant (dated 21.08.2008) did not entitle him to continue occupying the specific quarter meant for ministers – The continued occupation was illegal – Penal rent of Rs.20,98,757 imposed was lawful [Paras 16-17]. 
 
Public Premises – Unauthorized Occupation – Liability to Pay Penal Rent with Interest - Court relied upon Lok Prahari vs. State of U.P. (2016) 8 SCC 389, S.D. 
Bandi vs. Karnataka SRTC (2013) 12 SCC 631, and other binding precedents – Unauthorized occupation by former legislators is impermissible – Appellant directed to pay Rs.20,98,757 along with 6% interest from 24.08.2016 till actual payment [Paras 17-19]. 
 
Doctrine of Equality – Distribution of Public Property - Court reiterated that public property like government accommodation is not a private right – Allotment is coterminus with official status – Retention beyond entitlement infringes others’ rights – Appellant acted contrary to legal and ethical expectations [Paras 18-19]. 
 
Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed - The appeal was found devoid of merit both on maintainability and merits – The appellant was directed to deposit the penal rent with interest within one month [Paras 20-22]. 
 

Taxation Law - Customs – Delay in Adjudication – Rule 16 of Drawback Rules – Notices Quashed – The petitioners challenged show cause notices issued in 2016 alleging misclassification and excess duty drawback, which remained pending till 2023 – Held: Such inordinate delay without adjudication violates principles of natural justice and renders the notices without jurisdiction [Paras 1-20, 33-36].

Export Classification – Final Assessment – No Appeal Filed – Assessment Final – Show Cause Notices Beyond Jurisdiction – Petitioners’ shipping bills were finally assessed with duty drawback granted, and no appeal filed by department – Held: Reopening assessment by show cause notices is impermissible and constitutes review of final order without authority [Paras 12-18, 34, 36].

Call Book Mechanism – Non-Disclosure to Petitioners – Breach of Natural Justice – It was revealed only during court proceedings that the show cause notices were placed under "Call Book" – Held: Non-communication of such placement to petitioners amounts to violation of natural justice [Para 15].

Limitation – Rule 16 of Drawback Rules – Reasonable Time – 3 Years – Gujarat HC Precedent Applied – Held: Although Rule 16 does not specify a limitation period, a reasonable 3-year limitation must be read into it – Notices issued beyond this period are time-barred [Paras 35-36].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedents – Non-Following of Previous Rulings – Condemned – Respondents issued notices contrary to established decisions on classification and limitation – Held: Disregard of binding judicial precedent by adjudicating authorities strongly disapproved [Paras 36-37].

Final Decision – Show Cause Notices Quashed – Petitions Allowed – Held: Show cause notices issued in violation of jurisdictional limits and settled law are quashed – Petitioners entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution [Final Para].
 

Compounding of Offence – Section 138 NI Act – Consent of Complainant Mandatory – Application Dismissed - The petitioner sought compounding of the offence on the basis of partial deposit of compensation – The complainant opposed the request and refused to consent – Held: Compounding under Section 138 read with Section 147 NI Act requires consent of complainant; Courts cannot override this requirement – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-9, 15].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Not Substitutable for Consent – Court Cannot Compel Compromise - Citing JIK Industries v. Amar Lal V. Jumani and Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana, the Court held it cannot invoke Section 482 CrPC or Section 147 NI Act to compound an offence in absence of complainant’s consent – Compounding without consent not permissible even if compensation is paid [Paras 6-8, 17-19].

Quantum of Compensation – Inadequate Payment – No Basis for Quashing - The Court found that the cheque amount was ₹1,65,525 dated 17.03.2004 and calculated interest at 9% per annum over 21 years to ₹3,12,842 – Against this, only ₹50,000 had been deposited by the accused – Held: Compensation inadequate, and petitioner's plea for quashing based on partial payment cannot be entertained [Paras 11-13].

Litigation Abuse – Delay and Forum Shopping – Premium on Dishonesty Not Permitted - The Court cautioned against the misuse of judicial process where accused protracts litigation and later seeks quashing based on partial compliance – Held: Law cannot allow litigants to harass complainants and then claim relief under guise of justice [Para 14].

Decision – Application for Compounding Dismissed – Final Hearing Directed - The compounding application was rejected – Court scheduled the main criminal revision for final hearing in due course [Paras 15-16].
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Protest Leadership Alone Not Sufficient – No Specific Allegations – Proceedings Quashed - Petitioner, then President of Telangana Political JAC, was accused of calling for a rail roko during agitation in 2011—Held: No evidence of direct participation or instigation—Witnesses only referred to political call, not physical involvement—Continuation of trial would amount to abuse of legal process [Paras 6–8, 13–14].

Section 188 IPC – Prosecution Barred Without Proper Complaint – Violation of Section 195(1)(a) CrPC - Cognizance for disobedience to public servant’s order requires complaint by competent authority—Charge sheet filed by police officer without requisite authority—Prosecution unsustainable in law [Paras 9–10].

Public Protest and Mens Rea – No Material Showing Intent or Threat – Criminal Liability Not Attracted - Presence of slogans or crowd gathering on railway tracks not attributable directly to petitioner—Statements failed to prove intent to incite violence or disrupt services—No mens rea for offences under IPC or Railways Act [Paras 7, 11].

Bhajan Lal Guidelines – Guideline No. 6 Invoked – Legal Bar and Lack of Allegations - Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Court found express legal bar to prosecution and absence of prima facie case—Quashing under Section 482 CrPC justified [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 393 of 2023 Quashed Against Petitioner – Miscellaneous Applications Closed [Paras 14–15].

Land Acquisition – Discriminatory Deletion – Articles 14 and 21 – Acquisition Upheld – The appellants alleged arbitrary and discriminatory deletion of lands from final acquisition without proper justification or uniform criteria – Court held the deletions were made on legitimate grounds including built-up areas, green zones, and government utility purposes – No evidence of mala fide or favoritism found – Held: The deletion of some lands did not render the entire acquisition invalid [Paras 8–10, 30].

Urban Planning – Jurisdiction of BDA – Validity of Acquisition in Panchayat Areas – Jurisdiction Upheld – Appellants challenged BDA’s jurisdiction over non-metropolitan and Panchayat lands – Court held that acquisition sanctioned by the State Government under the BDA Act is valid and within jurisdiction – Referred to Girnar Traders case affirming urban authorities’ acquisition power [Para 34].

Lapse of Acquisition – Delay in Possession and Awards – No Lapse – Appellants contended that acquisition lapsed under Section 27 of BDA Act and Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Court found possession of 580 acres was already taken, layout formed, and substantial development completed – Acquisition cannot lapse when project is substantially implemented [Paras 14, 31].

Procedural Fairness – Objections and Hearing – Due Compliance – Appellants claimed they were not granted proper hearing under Section 18 – Court held that written objections were invited and considered by BDA in meetings and no requirement of oral hearings under BDA Act – Notification and publication process fulfilled statutory mandate [Paras 22–23, 32].

Public Purpose – Legitimacy of Scheme – Banashankari VI Stage Extension – Valid Public Interest – Formation of layout for residential expansion in Bangalore held as valid public purpose – 5991 sites formed and 4983 allotted – Court held that urban housing need justified acquisition and expenditure of public funds [Paras 35–36].

Relief to Site Owners – Priority Allotment – Equitable Resolution – Court noted that BDA offered alternate site allotment (30’x40’) to site holders per precedent in G.R. Jayamma case – Compensation to be adjusted subject to legal ownership and eligibility criteria – Such scheme considered fair and not a precedent for future cases [Para 33].

Decision – Acquisition Proceedings Upheld – All Appeals Dismissed – The High Court found no merit in the grounds raised by appellants – Acquisition proceedings held legal, fair, and in public interest – Writ appeals dismissed and Single Judge orders upheld [Paras 28–36].
 

Criminal Law - Murder  – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Accused convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstances after eyewitnesses turned hostile – Court found that circumstances such as previous enmity, presence near the scene prior to the occurrence, and recovery of blood-stained shirt were insufficient to form a complete chain of evidence – Held: Mere presence at the scene and previous enmity without direct evidence or clinching circumstantial evidence cannot sustain conviction – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 16-25]. 
 
Recovery Evidence – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Reliability – Recovery of MO1 series choppers and MO2 iron rod at the instance of the accused doubted as weapons did not have traces of blood – Delay in producing recovered weapons before the Court – Held: Recovery not reliable to link accused to crime beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 19-20]. 
 
Ocular Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Value – PW3 who claimed to be an eyewitness was suffering from psychiatric illness and his statement was inconsistent with prior police statement under Section 161 CrPC – Court refused to accept his version – Other witnesses turned hostile – Held: Conviction cannot be based on the testimony of PW3 or hostile witnesses [Paras 16-17]. 
 
Motive – Proof of Previous Enmity – Absence of Supporting Material – Prosecution failed to produce records of the prior incident that allegedly motivated the accused to commit the offence – Held: Motive not satisfactorily proved [Para 18]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence of accused set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in other cases [Para 25]. 
 

Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Acquittal Upheld – Failure to Prove Demand or Cruelty – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged acquittal in a case involving death of his daughter allegedly due to dowry-related cruelty – Trial court found no evidence of dowry demand or proof of homicidal or suicidal death – Prosecution witnesses failed to support allegations during cross-examination – Held: No perversity in trial court findings, hence acquittal sustained [Paras 6–9, 24–25]. 
Presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act – No Automatic Shift in Burden – Section 106 not applicable in absence of foundational facts – Accused present in house at time of incident does not by itself justify drawing adverse inference under Section 106 – Held: Burden of proving guilt remains on prosecution throughout [Para 23]. 
 
Medical Evidence – No Proof of Strangulation – Cause of Death Uncertain – As per PW-4 (doctor), no fresh injury marks or signs of strangulation were found – Postmortem inconclusive and viscera report not produced – Held: Medical evidence contradicts prosecution case, supports trial court’s view [Paras 20–21]. 
 
Illicit Relationship Allegation – Not Substantiated – Alleged affair of accused not proved – No specific details or corroborating evidence produced – Held: Mere allegation without evidence cannot establish motive or cruelty [Para 22]. 
Standard for Interference with Acquittal – No Perversity in Trial Court’s Findings – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that appellate courts must not interfere with acquittals unless findings are palpably wrong or manifestly erroneous – Held: Trial court’s findings sustainable, appeal dismissed [Paras 10–16, 25–26].