Railways Act – Untoward Incident – Section 123(c)(2) – Crossing Railway Track – Not Falling from Train – Claim Rejected – Deceased was allegedly travelling from Nallasopara to Borivali on 05.08.2006 and said to have fallen from a moving train between Bhayandar and Nallasopara – However, the postmortem report dated 10.08.2006 recorded that on arrival at K.E.M. Hospital at 3:15 p.m. on 05.08.2006, it was stated by Mr. Sachin Jewekar (companion) that the deceased was crossing the railway track at Nallasopara Railway Station when he was hit by a running train from behind – Station Master and police were not informed on the date of incident – Subsequent police investigation report (08.08.2006) and inquest panchanama (10.08.2006) stated that deceased fell from a moving train – Held: Statement made at the first available instance before hospital authorities on the date of the incident is more authentic and reliable than subsequent statements – Incident was one of being knocked down while crossing a railway track and does not fall within the definition of "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) – Tribunal justified in rejecting the claim [Paras 5-7]

Railways Act – Bonafide Passenger – Issue Not Required to Be Examined – Both conditions of "bonafide passenger" and "untoward incident" must be satisfied for compensation – Since the incident does not fall within an "untoward incident", the issue of bonafide passenger need not be examined – Failure of either condition is sufficient to reject the claim [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 23.02.2015 upheld – Civil/Interim Applications do not survive.

Municipal Law – Building Safety – Judicial Directions – Commissioner's Order Quashed – Section 258(2) of Jammu Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 – Tenants running shops for decades at 70, Exchange Road, Jammu, were faced with an unsafe building declaration obtained allegedly at the landlord's behest to forcibly evict them – Court-supervised expert committee of PWD (R&B) Engineering Wing declared shops structurally safe vide report dated 26.05.2025 – This Court vide judgment dated 16.07.2025 in WP(C) No. 299/2025 directed the Commissioner to reconsider "strictly in the light of the report" – Commissioner instead issued impugned order No. 41/2025 directing a fresh safety audit through a private empanelled firm – Held: "The order passed by the Commissioner is in flagrant violation of the judgment passed by this Court" and "is palpably bad in the eyes of law, being arbitrary and contrary to the binding directions" – Order quashed [Paras 2–61].

Administrative Authority – Bound by Expert Report – Cannot Reopen Concluded Issues – "Once a competent court issues a direction requiring reconsideration strictly in light of a specified report, the scope of such reconsideration stands circumscribed by the judicial mandate itself" – Authority must either accept expert findings or record "cogent, legally sustainable and reasoned grounds for differing" – "Once a Court-appointed inquiry committee has concluded its inquiry, the administrative authorities are denuded of any power to constitute another committee or order a parallel inquiry on the same issue" – Held: Commissioner's referral to a fresh private agency amounted to "abdication of duty" and "excess of jurisdiction" [Paras 35–36, 46].

Fraud on Power – Colourable Exercise – Unsafe Declaration as Tool for Illegal Eviction – The Court noted prima facie circumstances suggesting that the initial unsafe report "may have been engineered at the instance or under the influence of the landlord, with an oblique motive to oust the lawful tenants by bypassing the legally prescribed civil process for ejectment" – Held: "The process of declaring a building unsafe cannot be misused as a tool to dispossess tenants" – "What cannot be achieved directly through legal means cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly by invoking safety concerns contrary to an authoritative technical report" – Reliance placed on Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872 and State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh, 1980 AIR SC 319 [Paras 50–60].

Right to Livelihood – Article 21 – Prolonged Shop Closure Constitutionally Impermissible – Petitioners are "petty shopkeepers whose livelihood is directly and exclusively dependent upon the shops in question" – "It pains this Court to note that how these poor shopkeepers would have survived during the intervening period when the shops in question were their sole source of livelihood" – Held: Administrative action causing closure of shops declared safe by a court-constituted committee is "disproportionate" and "constitutionally impermissible" as it amounts to "a direct infringement of the petitioners' fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21" [Paras 45, 53–54].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order No. 41/2025 dated 26.07.2025 quashed – Petitioners directed to be permitted forthwith to use and occupy the shops declared structurally safe – Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 directed to carry out rectification of Shop No. 5 expeditiously – Chief Secretary, UT of Jammu & Kashmir, directed to constitute an independent inquiry committee within two weeks to examine circumstances leading to the initial unsafe report – If any officer found responsible, personal costs of Rs. 10,000/- to each petitioner (totalling Rs. 70,000/-) recoverable from salary – Contempt petition CCP(S) No. 382/2025 stands closed.

Minor's Personal Liberty – Social Media – Misleading Post – Facebook – Article 21 – A minor child, residing lawfully with her natural guardian-mother, approached the Court after a post falsely declaring her missing and offering a cash reward of Rs.1,00,000/- was uploaded on Facebook, allegedly in the name of her grandfather (Respondent No.5) – The post, though disputed as to its origin, remained visible on Facebook causing unknown persons to visit the petitioner's residence – Held: Posting of misleading or false material on Facebook or any social/electronic/print media violates personal rights, dignity, and reputation guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Meta Platform Inc. directed to block/take down the offending post and photographs of the petitioner forthwith [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Social Media Regulation – Intermediary Liability – IT Rules, 2021 – Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandates intermediaries, including social media platforms, to ensure users do not host, upload, or share patently false, misleading, or privacy-invading information – Facebook/Meta Platform Inc. found to have failed in enforcing adequate safeguards against such misleading content – Regulation of social media essential to balance freedom of expression with dignity and rights of vulnerable individuals, particularly children [Paras 8, 9, 10].

Child Custody – Pending Proceedings – Minor to Remain with Natural Guardian-Mother – Respondents claimed to have filed an application for custody of the petitioner before a competent Court, disputed by the petitioner's counsel as already rejected – Held: In the absence of any subsisting order or pending petition, the petitioner shall remain in the lawful custody of her natural guardian-mother; any pending Court proceedings shall govern the rights of the parties accordingly [Para 7].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Meta Platform Inc. (parent company of Facebook) directed to block/take down the misleading post and photographs of the petitioner from its platform – Copy of order directed to be sent to the registered office of Meta Platform Inc. in India – Stay application and all pending applications disposed of.

Company Law – Interim Relief – Administration Suit – Plaintiff sought directions to be made joint signatory to bank accounts, deposit of income from estate properties, and restoration of monies allegedly withdrawn from estate – Reliance placed on Commissioner’s Report indicating high cash withdrawals and financial irregularities in company associated with deceased – Held: Commissioner’s report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence at interlocutory stage and defendants must be given opportunity to challenge and test the report through cross-examination and evidence – Interim reliefs refused as they would amount to granting substantially final relief without trial [Paras 24–25, 31].

Company Law – Jurisdiction – Civil Court vis-à-vis NCLT – Plaintiff raised grievances regarding financial management and alleged dissipation of assets of company in which deceased held substantial shareholding – Held: Issues relating to corporate governance, oppression, mismanagement, or functioning of company fall within exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT – Civil court in administration suit cannot grant reliefs interfering with management of company [Paras 29].

Evidence – Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Report of court-appointed commissioner appointed by consent of parties – Held: Mere consent to appointment of commissioner does not imply acceptance of findings as final – Commissioner’s report is not substantive evidence and can be challenged by parties through cross-examination and independent evidence [Paras 24–25].

Corporate Governance – Acquiescence – Plaintiff, a director of the company, had signed financial statements for multiple years after demise of deceased reflecting financial transactions and shareholding structure – Held: Plaintiff cannot prima facie feign ignorance of financial affairs or challenge shareholding structure at interlocutory stage after several years – conduct indicates acquiescence and delay [Paras 26–27].

Interim Relief – Mandatory Directions – Prayer to restore allegedly withdrawn monies and deposit revenues of estate in court – Held: Reliefs are substantially mandatory and near-final in nature – In administration suits such directions ordinarily follow only after determination of rights and accounting – Grant of such relief at interim stage impermissible [Paras 30–31].

Administration of Estate – Interim Financial Arrangement – Court noted earlier ad-interim order directing defendants to pay plaintiff ₹3,00,000 per month – Held: Existing arrangement sufficiently safeguards plaintiff’s financial interests pending suit – No irreparable injury shown as alleged monetary loss can be compensated after accounts are taken [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Interim Application rejected insofar as prayer clauses (c), (f) and (g) are concerned – Statement of defendants recorded that they shall not create third-party rights in respect of estate assets pending suit – Existing arrangement directing payment of ₹3,00,000 per month to plaintiff to continue – Liberty granted to plaintiff to seek enhancement of amount if circumstances so warrant – No order as to costs.

Income Tax – TDS – Section 201(3) – Limitation – Quarter-wise Computation – Not Annual – Assessee filed TDS Returns for the first three quarters of FY 2008-09 in that financial year itself, while the fourth quarter return was filed on 15.06.2009 in FY 2009-10 – Order under Section 201(1) declaring assessee in default was passed on 15.03.2012 – Section 201(3) stipulates that no order shall be passed after expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement is filed – Since TDS statements under Rule 31A are mandatorily filed on a quarterly basis, each quarter constitutes a separate compliance period with a distinct filing date and independent starting point for limitation – Appellant's contention that limitation must be computed on an annual/cumulative basis rejected as contrary to the text and structure of the statutory framework – Held: Proceedings for first three quarters barred by limitation; demand for fourth quarter rightly sustained – Limitation provisions in taxing statutes must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by implication [Paras 6-7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of ITAT, Pune dated 12.03.2018 upheld – Proceedings for first three quarters of AY 2009-10 held barred by limitation – Demand for fourth quarter sustained.

Service Law – Anganwadi Worker – Promotion – Priority of Anganwadi Helper – Vacancy for Anganwadi Worker arose on 30.04.2024 at Anganwadi Centre Kashpo – Writ petitioner had been serving as Anganwadi Helper at the same centre since 2000 and completed more than 24 years of service – Authorities transferred another Anganwadi Worker to the centre on request after marriage thereby defeating the petitioner’s claim – Rule 5 of Notification dated 19.06.2010 mandates that the Helper working in the same centre shall be given first opportunity to be appointed as Worker if educational qualifications are satisfied – Held: Transfer order cannot defeat the statutory priority and vested right of consideration for promotion – Order directing promotion upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6-10].

Service Law – Transfer on Marriage – Scope of Rule 4 – Appellant relied on Rule 4 permitting adjustment of Anganwadi Worker at the place of husband’s residence after marriage subject to availability of vacancy – Court held that such adjustment is only permissive and cannot override the preferential right of the Anganwadi Helper under Rule 5 when vacancy arises in the same centre – Administrative transfer effected after vacancy which extinguished the promotional claim of the Helper was unjustified [Paras 9-10].

Service Jurisprudence – Legitimate Expectation – Right to be considered for promotion – Writ petitioner having served for more than two decades as Anganwadi Helper in the same centre had a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion when the vacancy arose – Administrative action depriving such consideration by transferring another Worker into the vacancy was arbitrary – Court affirmed the direction granting promotion from the due date with consequential benefits [Paras 6-10].

Anticipatory Bail – Allegations of Digital Harassment and Outraging Modesty – Accused allegedly seized victim’s mobile phone, accessed her Google account, changed credentials and published private photographs without consent – Prosecution alleged offences under BNS and Information Technology Act – Court examined First Information Statement and found absence of specific allegations constituting the offence of making sexually coloured remarks under Section 75(1)(iv) BNS, which was the only non-bailable offence – Held: Ingredients of the said offence not prima facie made out and custodial interrogation unnecessary – Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2, 3, 7].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Consideration of Relationship Between Parties – Applicant and victim were previously in a long-term relationship and victim was working under the applicant in his recruitment firm – Another criminal case between the parties was already pending in which applicant had been granted bail – Court noted existence of prior disputes and enmity between parties while considering bail – Held: Circumstances support grant of anticipatory bail when custodial interrogation is not required [Para 6].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions Imposed – Applicant directed to execute bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation, appear before investigating officer weekly, refrain from contacting witnesses, not leave State of Kerala without permission and not commit similar offences – Jurisdictional court empowered to modify or cancel bail on violation of conditions [Para 7].

Decision: Bail Application allowed – Applicant granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions including execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, weekly appearance before investigating officer, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving the State without court permission.

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Section 250 BNSS – Sixty-Day Period – Nature and Effect – Condonation of Delay – Applicants, Directors, CEO and medical practitioners of Khyati Hospital sought discharge under Section 250 BNSS — discharge applications filed beyond sixty days from date of committal — Sessions Court rejected delay condonation applications and entered into merits at that stage — maximum delay beyond sixty days was approximately 140 days — prosecution relied upon additional documents not forming part of original charge-sheet record at stage of hearing discharge applications — Held: Sixty-day period under Section 250(1) BNSS regulates procedure and does not extinguish the right to seek discharge — delay does not ipso facto disentitle accused where sufficient cause is shown — Sessions Judge erred in refusing to condone delay and in entering into merits at stage of condonation — impugned orders quashed — delay condoned — discharge applications remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 3–6, 30–35].

"Section 250(1) BNSS – Sixty-Day Period – Trigger Mechanism or Substantive Bar – Nature of Right to Discharge"

BNSS – Section 250(1) – Discharge – Sixty-Day Period – Nature – Accused have a right to prefer discharge application within sixty days from date of committal under Section 250(1) BNSS — this provision is intended to trigger prosecution to open and crystallise its case at the threshold — however, failure to exercise right within sixty days does not extinguish the substantive right — right of discharge is intrinsically connected with the guarantee of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — sixty-day period regulates the remedy and not the underlying right — beyond sixty days, the remedy is subject to the Court's discretion to condone delay upon sufficient cause being shown — Court remains duty bound to apply judicial mind before framing of charge even if no discharge application is filed and if no sufficient material exists for framing of charge, the Court must discharge the accused — Held: Sixty-day period under Section 250(1) BNSS does not exclude judicial discretion in appropriate cases where delay is not attributable to the accused [Paras 9, 9.1, 21–23].

"Non-Supply of Documents – Section 230 BNSS – Committal Proceedings – Prejudice – Void ab initio"

BNSS – Section 230 – Section 232 – Supply of Documents – Committal – Validity – Prosecution supplied certain additional documents not forming part of original charge-sheet papers at the stage of reply to discharge applications — committal under Section 232 mandates prior compliance with Section 230 — supply of documents is condition precedent for meaningful defence — committal proceedings are administrative in nature and not adjudicatory on merits — procedural irregularities do not ipso facto vitiate proceedings unless failure of justice is demonstrated — prejudice must be shown to invalidate committal — Held: Committal not rendered void ab initio merely because additional documents were supplied subsequently — prosecution cannot rely upon such additional documents until they are duly furnished to the accused — discharge applications to be considered afresh after complete supply of all materials relied upon by the prosecution [Paras 24–29].

"Condonation of Delay – Merits Not to Be Examined – Sessions Judge's Error"

Criminal Procedure – Delay Condonation – Sessions Court erred by adverting to merits of the case while deciding condonation of delay — it is settled law that merits of the case are not to be examined while deciding condonation — substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations — length of delay is not decisive; what matters is whether sufficient cause is shown and whether delay is bona fide — Held: Rigid and technical approach in the present facts would defeat substantial justice — delay condoned [Paras 15–17, 31–32].

Decision: All impugned orders quashed and set aside — delay in filing discharge applications condoned — trial Court directed to decide discharge applications afresh on merits after ensuring complete supply of all documents relied upon by prosecution and after affording full opportunity of hearing to both sides — trial Court to remain uninfluenced by any observations in earlier orders or the present order — Rule made absolute.

Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Temporary Employees – Denial of Permanency – Petitioners employed as clerks and peons by District Central Co-operative Bank continued on temporary basis for more than a decade despite performing work of permanent and perennial nature – Industrial Court dismissed complaints solely on ground that staffing pattern of the Bank had not been approved – Evidence on record showed that petitioners were appointed against vacant posts, worked continuously without termination, PF contributions were deducted and deposited, and duties were identical to those performed by permanent employees – Bank admitted existence of substantial manpower shortage and perennial nature of work – Held: Continuation of employees as temporary for prolonged period despite existence of vacancies constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Industrial Court erred in ignoring admissions and evidence on record – Impugned award set aside [Paras 28–37, 63–67].

Unfair Labour Practice – Discrimination in Service Conditions – Petitioners paid consolidated wages of Rs.6000–9000 and denied allowances, leave benefits, promotions and other privileges available to permanent employees performing identical work – Bank admitted denial of benefits solely on ground of temporary status – Held: Differential treatment without justification amounts to discrimination attracting Item 5 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act [Paras 5–6, 65–67].

Banking Regulation – NABARD Guidelines – Nature and Binding Effect – Bank relied on NABARD communications and guidelines regarding staffing pattern and recruitment policy claiming that absence of sanctioned staffing pattern prevented regularisation – Court held that Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act empowers inspection and supervisory functions but does not confer authority on NABARD to issue binding directions regarding staffing pattern or service regularisation – Such communications are advisory and do not have statutory force unless backed by specific statutory provision or rule [Paras 39–44].

Co-operative Societies – Power of State Government – Section 79A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Statutory directions regarding management and administration of co-operative societies including staffing pattern can be issued only by State Government under Section 79A – Such directions acquire binding force only when issued in writing upon satisfaction that they are necessary in public interest or for proper management – In absence of any such order on record, employer cannot rely on alleged restriction to deny permanency [Paras 45–52].

Regularisation – Principle under MRTU & PULP Act – Reliance on Supreme Court decision in Casteribe – Industrial and Labour Courts empowered to grant appropriate relief including permanency where employees are deliberately continued on temporary status for years to deny benefits attached to permanent employment – Relief not based merely on long service but on proof of unfair labour practice – Where work is perennial, vacancies exist and employees are continued for years, denial of permanency amounts to unfair labour practice [Paras 55–58].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022 passed by Industrial Court, Nashik quashed and set aside – Respondent Bank held to have engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Bank directed to undertake exercise of regularisation of petitioners against available vacant posts within twelve weeks subject to verification of eligibility – Eligible petitioners to be granted permanency with continuity of service – Regular pay scale and benefits to be granted prospectively from date of regularisation – Bank restrained from terminating petitioners till completion of exercise – Request for stay rejected.