Writ Law - Dismissal Approval - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Petitioner Municipal Corporation sought approval for dismissal of Respondent Clerk found guilty of masterminding octroi refund fraud - Internal enquiry found Respondent guilty of diverting Rs 4 10 885 to third-party accounts and receiving kickbacks - Industrial Tribunal upheld the finding of guilt but rejected the approval application citing non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) proviso - Tribunal held that deductions for Provident Fund and Income Tax from wages and non-payment of an annual increment rendered the wage payment incomplete - High Court found that the Tribunal erroneously conflated regular November 2006 salary with the additional one month wages required under the proviso - Evidence showed Petitioner offered and sent Rs 14 468 via money order separately without deductions which the Tribunal ignored - Held - Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach that resulted in a corrupt employee claiming reinstatement with backwages - Findings of Tribunal were perverse and ignored material evidence on record - Writ petition allowed and dismissal approved - [Paras 1-43].

Labour Law - One Month Wages - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Proviso compliance - The requirement of paying one month wages is additional to the normal salary earned by the workman for the month of dismissal - Minor deficits or statutory deductions like Income Tax or Provident Fund do not ipso facto vitiate the approval application - Courts must distinguish between statutory deductions and other contractual deductions - Even if a deficit exists the Tribunal can direct the employer to deposit the shortfall while granting approval instead of setting aside the dismissal - Non-payment of an increment which was withheld or disputed at the time of application does not amount to violation of Section 33(2)(b) - Held - Objective of the provision is to provide solace to the employee and not to create technical loopholes for employees guilty of grave misconduct like corruption and forgery to escape consequences - [Paras 19-40].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders of the Industrial Tribunal dated 07/05/2010 and 05/01/2012 set aside – Approval granted to the Petitioner's action of removal of the Respondent from service.

Criminal Law - Pre-cognizance hearing - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 223 - Companies Act 2013 - Sections 212(15) 436 and 438 - Petitioner Vivo India Private Limited challenged order of Additional Sessions Judge Gurugram denying a hearing before taking cognizance - Contended that since SFIO filed the case as a complaint the newly inserted mandatory proviso to Section 223 BNSS must be followed - Respondent SFIO argued that Companies Act is a self-contained code and Section 212(15) deems the investigation report as a police report which is excluded from the definition of a complaint under Section 2(1)(h) BNSS - High Court examined the statutory architecture of the Companies Act - Observed that Special Courts for serious fraud offenses are presided over by Sessions Judges and are governed by Section 213 BNSS for cognizance rather than Section 223 which applies to Magistrates - Found that Section 212(15) of the Companies Act creates a legal fiction treating the SFIO report as a police report for framing charges and subsequent proceedings - Held - The special procedure under the Companies Act 2013 overrides the general provisions of the BNSS to the extent of inconsistency - The requirement of a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223 BNSS does not apply to SFIO prosecutions as it would frustrate the object of expeditious trial and result in repetitive exercises since suspects are already associated with the statutory investigation - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-66].

Criminal Law - Special Statutes - Companies Act 2013 - Section 212 - SFIO Investigation - Nature of report - Section 212(15) creates a statutory deeming fiction where the investigation report is treated as a police report under Section 173 CrPC now Section 193 BNSS - Held - Once the legislature equates the SFIO report with a police report the proceedings cannot be treated as a private complaint case under Chapter XVI of the BNSS - Consequently the procedural safeguard of a pre-cognizance hearing is not available to the proposed accused - [Paras 32-39].

Interpretation of Statutes - Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant - Companies Act 2013 - BNSS 2023 - Conflict of procedures - Sections 4 and 5 of BNSS preserve procedures prescribed by special laws - Section 438 of the Companies Act makes BNSS applicable only insofar as it is not inconsistent with the special Act - Held - The specific mechanism for cognizance provided under Section 436(1)(d) of the Companies Act without a hearing requirement prevails over the general provision of Section 223 BNSS - Courts cannot import general procedural hurdles that defeat the legislative intent of a special statute - [Paras 40-46].

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction - Special Courts - BNSS 2023 - Section 213 - Distinction between Sessions Court and Magistrate - Section 223 BNSS applies specifically to Magistrates - Special Courts under Section 435(2)(a) of the Companies Act are Sessions-level courts - Held - Cognizance by a Court of Sessions is governed by Section 213 BNSS which does not contemplate a pre-cognizance hearing - Importing the proviso of Section 223 into the scheme of Section 213 would amount to impermissible judicial legislation - [Paras 52-56].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The order of the Special Court Gurugram dated 11.02.2026 is upheld – No pre-cognizance hearing is required in SFIO prosecutions under the Companies Act, 2013.

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 66 - Settlement of Sale Proclamation - Petitioner challenged the docket order of the Sessions Judge Mahila Court Chengalpattu which approved a draft sale proclamation and timeline filed by an Advocate Commissioner through a memo - Petitioner contended that the trial court ignored specific earlier directions in CRP No. 1341 of 2022 and CRP No. 3991 of 2022 to appoint an engineer for valuation and fix a base price after hearing parties - The High Court observed that the trial court virtually delegated its judicial power to the Commissioner by passing a judicial order on a memo instead of following mandatory procedures - Rule 66 mandates that the Court shall cause the proclamation to be made and drawn up after notice to the decree holder and judgment debtor - Held - The trial court blindly approved the draft forwarded by the Commissioner which is impermissible in law and contrary to High Court directions - Impugned order set aside and matter remitted for strict compliance - [Paras 1-17].

Civil Law - Delegation of Judicial Power - Civil Rules of Practice - Section 194 - Duty of the Judge - The power to settle a sale proclamation is a judicial function and not a ministerial task - Section 194 of Civil Rules of Practice mandates that any proclamation of sale must be necessarily settled by the Judge and signed by him - In the present case the trial court merely endorsed a draft suggested by the Advocate Commissioner on a memo - High Court held that such endorsement does not amount to compliance with the mandate of the law - Held - The Judge must personally settle the proclamation - [Paras 15-16].

Civil Law - Timely Disposal - Directions for Aged Litigants - Respondents 1 and 2 being aged litigants requested early disposal - High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the proceedings finally within three months - Held - Trial court to comply with mandatory requirements for settlement of sale proclamation within the specified timeline - [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 05.06.2026 set aside – Matter remitted back to the trial court for compliance with mandatory rules and disposal within three months.

Criminal Law - Bail in Terrorism Cases - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 120-B - Appeal against dismissal of third bail application - Appellant allegedly headed the media cell of terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen and sent Message of Death email minutes before the 2008 Delhi serial blasts resulting in 26 deaths - Trial Court dismissed bail citing statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) - Appellant contended false implication and 17-year incarceration as an undertrial - High Court analyzed the material on record including identification by laptop vendor and recovery of sophisticated file-erasing software - Court observed that once charges are framed under UAPA the threshold of prima facie truth is met for the purpose of bail restrictions - Held - The gravity of the offense involving a trail of devastation and the active conspiratorial role of the appellant as a computer professional outweighs the length of incarceration when the trial is at its fag end - appeal dismissed - [Paras 42-107].

Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty versus National Security - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Applicability of KA Najeeb ratio - Appellant argued that 17 years of incarceration makes continued detention unconstitutional - High Court interpreted the interplay between statutory bars and constitutional powers - Observed that while Article 21 protects individual liberty it also reflects the State obligation to protect the security of the community - In prosecutions involving national security the sovereignty and integrity of the nation must prevail over personal liberty where a prima facie case of organized terrorism exists - Held - Prolonged custody does not operate as an automatic override to the statutory threshold of Section 43-D(5) when the trial progress is substantial - [Paras 80-99].

Criminal Law - Parity - Distinction in Roles - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Parity with co-accused - Appellant sought parity with co-accused Mohd Hakim who was granted bail - Court examined the role of Mohd Hakim who supplied ball bearings versus the appellant who allegedly headed the media cell and hacked wireless networks - Held - The role of a computer professional managing the strategic media communication for a banned organization cannot be equated with a peripheral participant - parity denied - [Paras 77-101].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude trial within eight months as per Supreme Court mandate – Observations on bail not to affect the final adjudication on merits.

Writ Law - Labour and Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Approval for dismissal - Respondent-Clerk was found guilty of masterminding octroi refund fraud of Rs 4.10 lakhs and receiving kickbacks of Rs 1.50 lakhs - Enquiry found him guilty and removal was proposed - Petitioner-Corporation sought approval under Section 33(2)(b) due to an unconnected pending dispute - Industrial Tribunal rejected approval holding that Petitioner made deductions for provident fund and taxes in the November 2006 salary slip and failed to pay an increment due in October 2006 - High Court observed that Petitioner had pleaded and proved the separate remittance of Rs 14468 via money order as one month's additional wages without deductions which the Tribunal completely ignored - Tribunal erroneously equated the regular earned salary for November 2006 with the additional wages required under the proviso - Held - Rejection of approval for serious misconduct of corruption on hyper-technical grounds of minor wage deficits is unsustainable - Tribunal's findings were perverse for ignoring evidence of separate wage payment - Petition allowed - [Paras 1-43].

Industrial Law - Condition of Service - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Compliance with Proviso - Twin requirements of payment of one month's wages and filing of application for approval - Wages contemplated under the proviso represent additional wages for one month representing the succeeding month of unemployment - Such payment is distinct from the normal earned salary for the month in which dismissal is effected - Tribunal misdirected itself by examining deductions in the earned salary slip for November 2006 while ignoring the separate additional wage remittance - Held - Compliance with Section 33(2)(b) is to be tested against the additional month's wages paid or offered - [Paras 19-22].

Industrial Law - Statutory Deductions - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Effect of deductions on approval - Deduction of statutory dues like income tax or provident fund from one month's wages does not automatically vitiate the approval application - Tribunal has the power to make approval conditional upon deposit of any deficit amount in court rather than setting aside the dismissal - Protection under Section 33(2)(b) cannot be overstretched to allow corrupt employees to claim reinstatement with full backwages on technical grounds - Held - Non-compliance cannot be readily presumed where a bona fide offer of wages exists - Ratio of S. Ganapathy vs Air India applied - [Paras 31-36].

Industrial Law - Increment - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Wage calculation - Non-release of increment at the time of dismissal due to an ongoing dispute or withholding order does not constitute violation of the proviso - Workman needs to be paid what he would have ordinarily received at the relevant time - Respondent failed to prove that the amount offered did not represent his full wages - Held - Non-payment of a disputed increment is not fatal to an approval application - [Paras 39-40].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order of Industrial Tribunal dated 07/05/2010 and Review order dated 05/01/2012 set aside – Application (IT) No. 21 of 2006 allowed – Approval granted for the removal of the Respondent from service – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Partition - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Judgment on admissions - Plaintiffs sought preliminary and final decree of partition based on alleged admission by defendant no 1 counsel accepting the Will dated 30.03.2016 executed by late Smt Kalyani Roy - Defendant no 1 subsequently contested the Will in written statement alleging it was manufactured in collusion with a builder and citing testatrix lack of English proficiency and frail health as suspicious circumstances - Court examined whether the prior statement of counsel recorded in order dated 09.02.2022 constituted a binding admission for passing a decree without trial - Held - Power under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and requires clear unequivocal and unambiguous admission - Admission of the existence or making of a Will is distinct from an admission regarding its genuineness or legality - When suspicious circumstances are pleaded the propounder must prove the Will as per Section 68 of the Evidence Act - No merit in the application - Application dismissed - [Paras 1-57].

Evidence Law - Proof of Will - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 68 - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Genuineness of Will - Even if the opposite party does not specifically deny the execution of the Will the mandate of Section 68 requires at least one attesting witness to be examined - Admission of making a Will does not amount to admission of due execution and genuineness - Onus remains on the propounder to remove suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court - Held - Plaintiffs cannot be absolved from proving valid execution in view of the specific challenges raised regarding the testatrix mental and physical state - Admission of existence does not entitle plaintiffs to a decree on admissions - [Paras 48-55].

Decision: Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC dismissed – Plaintiffs directed to prove the valid execution of the Will in trial.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Appellant convicted for the murder of a motorcyclist found with bleeding injuries - Trial Court based conviction on four circumstances including the accused being known as B.B.Driver and the deceased allegedly writing this name on a paper Exhibit-6 before death - Prosecution further relied on palm prints found on the vehicle dickey and the presence of the accused near the spot - High Court noted that the FIR explicitly stated the deceased could not write when first provided with pen and paper - Prosecution failed to prove the handwriting on Exhibit-6 through comparison with admitted samples - Evidence regarding fingerprints was not supported by testimony on collection or expert examination - Identification of the accused for the first time in court without a Test Identification Parade was deemed weak - Held - the circumstances do not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - conviction and sentence set aside - [Paras 1-18].

Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Admissibility - Reliability - Prosecution relied on a piece of paper Exhibit-6 allegedly written by the deceased while struggling for life - FIR contents indicated the deceased was only able to gesture and failed to write when prompted initially - Witness P.W.8 claimed the deceased wrote the name later despite deteriorating physical condition - No medical certification of a fit state of mind at the time of writing - High Court observed that the condition of a gasping person would likely deteriorate rather than improve - Held - a dying declaration can only be accepted if proved to be voluntary and truthful while the declarant is in a fit state of mind - suspicious nature of the document creates reasonable doubt - [Paras 11-13].

Evidence Law - Fingerprint Evidence - Identification - Procedural Compliance - Prosecution claimed fingerprints of the appellant were found on the motorcycle dickey - No evidence produced regarding who lifted the prints or the method of preservation - Fingerprint expert was not examined as a witness - Accused identified in court for the first time by witnesses - Held - identification in court without prior T.I. Parade is a weak piece of evidence - fingerprint evidence is unacceptable in the absence of proof of proper collection and expert analysis - [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant directed to be set at liberty forthwith and bail bonds discharged.

Property Law - Lis Pendens - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 52 - Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of ownership based on sale deeds executed by vendor during pendency of a prior civil suit between the original owner and the vendor - Prior suit resulted in a compromise decree declaring the original owner title and nullifying the vendor title - Trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiffs - First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding that the sales were hit by the rule of lis pendens - High Court upheld the reversal noting that a purchaser pendente lite steps into the shoes of the vendor and is bound by the ultimate result of the litigation - Vendor had executed the sale deeds despite a restraint order in the prior suit - Held - Sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs were hit by the rule of lis pendens - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 17-20].

Civil Law - Collateral Challenge - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 52 - Collusive decree - Plaintiffs contended that the prior compromise decree was collusive and not binding on them - High Court observed that plaintiffs did not lay any challenge to the prior judgment and decree nor sought to amend their plaint to include a plea of collusion despite details being brought on record in the written statement - Relying on Supreme Court precedents the High Court held that a decision rendered by a competent court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings - Even if an order is void it requires to be set aside by a competent court of law - Held - Plaintiffs are not entitled to treat the judgment and decree as null and void without getting it set aside from the competent court - [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 09.11.1993 passed by the Additional District Judge Jalandhar upheld – All pending applications stand closed.

Writ Law - Recovery of Debt - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Installment Facility - Petitioner challenged coercive action for recovery of dues in KCC GECL and OD accounts - Petitioner requested opportunity to clear the entire outstanding and overdue amounts in installments - Respondent bank expressed no objection to the installment proposal as it was beneficial to the bank - Court observed total outstanding in KCC was Rs 812185 and total overdue in GECL and OD accounts was Rs 241002 - Held - Petitioner permitted to clear GECL and OD overdue in 2 equal monthly installments and KCC outstanding in 8 equal monthly installments - Coercive steps stayed subject to compliance with the payment schedule - [Paras 1-5].

Writ Law - SARFAESI Act 2002 - Default in Installments - Effect of Default - Petitioner granted breathing time to settle loan liabilities through monthly payments - Order specified that default in any single installment would entitle the bank to resume coercive recovery steps as per law - Held - Petition disposed of with specific directions on timeline and consequences of default - [Paras 5].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioner permitted to pay dues in installments – Coercive steps stayed on condition of regular payment.