Service Law – Removal From Service - Departmental Proceedings – Disagreement with Enquiry Report – Principles of Natural Justice – Removal Set Aside – Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer’s finding exonerating the petitioner without providing prior opportunity of hearing or disclosing tentative findings – Held: Such unilateral disagreement without prior notice and reasoning violates Regulation 11(25) and 11(26)(i) and principles of natural justice – Order of removal set aside [Paras 21–27, 39].

Multiple Chargesheets on Same Allegation – Abuse of Process – Chargesheet Withdrawn and Re-Issued – Petitioner Penalised Twice – Petitioner was subjected to three chargesheets on substantially the same allegations regarding conflicting details of educational qualifications – One penalty already imposed and one chargesheet withdrawn – Issuance of third chargesheet and imposition of removal penalty deemed oppressive and unjustified [Paras 8–9, 41].

Requirement of Reasoned Order – Lack of Speaking Order – Judicial Review Warranted – Appellate and reviewing authorities failed to record reasons – Held: Non-speaking orders in quasi-judicial functions undermine fairness – Judicial review is justified under Article 226 [Paras 30–34].

Back-Wages – Onus on Employer to Disprove Non-Employment – Petitioner Entitled to Relief – Plea of unemployment remained uncontroverted by respondents – Court held petitioner entitled to 50% back-wages and reinstatement with continuity of service – Reliance on Supreme Court rulings including Deepali Gundu Surwase [Paras 42–43].

Eviction Proceedings – Consequential Relief – Eviction Proceedings Nullified – Since the order of termination has been quashed, occupation of petitioner’s residence under MPT housing not unauthorised – Show cause notice for damages set aside [Para 43].

Final Decision – Order of removal dated 30.04.2011 along with appellate/review orders quashed – Petitioner to be reinstated with 50% back-wages and no recovery of damages under eviction proceedings – Writ petition allowed [Para 44].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious Liability – Non-Director Cannot Be Prosecuted – Petitioner Not Liable – Petitioner was neither a director of the accused company nor a signatory to the dishonoured cheques – Extract from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs confirmed he had no association with the company – Held: As per settled law under Section 141 NI Act, mere designation without active role in the company’s affairs does not fasten liability – Prosecution against petitioner quashed [Paras 3, 7].

Quashing of Complaint – Section 482 CrPC – Specific Averments Mandatory – The complaint lacked any specific allegations detailing the petitioner’s role in the conduct of the company’s business – Held: In the absence of such averments, vicarious liability cannot be inferred – Continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 7-8].

Precedents – Binding Nature of Apex Court Decisions – Followed – Court relied on landmark judgments including SMS Pharmaceuticals, Harmeet Singh Paintal, Saroj Kumar Poddar and K.K. Ahuja to reiterate that criminal complaints must specifically show how the accused was responsible for business conduct – Held: The petition deserved to be allowed based on established legal principles [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Petitions Allowed – Criminal Case Nos. 53135 and 53136 of 2016 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, quashed against the petitioner – Rule made absolute [Para 8].
 

Tenancy Dispute – Pendente Lite Transfer – Sham Transaction – Preliminary Objection Rejected - Court held that sale of land by respondent’s legal heirs during pendency of the writ petition was a fraudulent attempt to frustrate proceedings – Purchasers were close relatives, and transaction was held to be a sham – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of the T.P. Act – Non-joinder of such transferees not fatal [Paras 15-20].

Tenancy Rights – Longstanding Possession – Entry and Mamlatdar’s Orders Unchallenged – Petitioners Declared Tenants - Revenue entry from 1980 recognizing petitioners as cultivators remained unchallenged – Initial order under Section 32(G) recognizing tenancy and fixing purchase price was never appealed by landowner – Repeated participation and affidavit of owner supported tenancy – Tribunal's contrary order quashed [Paras 22-34].

Appropriation and Estoppel – Owner’s Earlier Support Now Discarded – Impermissible - Owner had earlier affirmed petitioners’ tenancy via affidavit and joint withdrawal of appeals – Later claims of fraud unsupported and contradictory – Held: Owner estopped from retracting and disputing tenancy in present proceedings [Paras 23-24, 33-34].

Deletion of Section 32(O) – No Effect on Existing Rights – Inquiry Limited to Agriculturist Status – Deletion Not Retroactive - Deletion of Section 32(O) does not undo established tenancy or payments made – Mamlatdar rightly noted tenants need not be agriculturists – Tribunal erred in applying the deletion retroactively [Paras 24-26, 30-31].

Final Decision – GRT Order Set Aside – Tenancy of Petitioners Restored for Block No. 730 - High Court found GRT order perverse and contrary to material on record – Orders of Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector restored confirming petitioners’ tenancy over Block No. 730 [Paras 33-35].
 

Muslim Law - Probate and Will – Requirement of Proving Testamentary Capacity and Absence of Suspicion – Will Rejected - Appellant claimed two Wills executed by deceased Tajuddin Shaikh in his favour – Trial Court and High Court found multiple suspicious circumstances including inconsistency regarding property ownership timelines, typewritten Wills with identical wording, and lack of clarity on religious identity and testamentary rights – Held: Appellant failed to discharge burden of proof required under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act to establish valid execution of Will [Paras 6, 9-13, 16-17].

Mohammedan Law – Limits on Bequest – Bequest Beyond One-Third Invalid Without Consent – Will Partially Invalid - As per Mohammedan Law, bequest beyond one-third of estate to non-heir is invalid without consent of legal heirs – Court held Will to be invalid beyond said limit in absence of such consent – Validity of Will limited to extent permissible under law [Para 14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Inclusion of Properties Not Owned at Time of Will – Will Held Invalid - Land purchased after the alleged execution date of first Will was included in it – Appellant failed to explain or produce evidence showing pre-existing agreement – Held: Inclusion of such land created suspicion regarding authenticity of Will [Para 16].

Succession Certificate – Grant to Legal Heirs – Certificate Upheld - Respondents were legal heirs of deceased and proved relationship – In absence of valid Will, Court rightly granted heirship and succession certificate to respondents – No interference warranted [Para 18].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Findings of Trial Court Upheld - Trial Court's conclusions based on factual and legal analysis upheld – No merit found in appeals filed by Sunil Shinde – Appeals dismissed [Para 19].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Medical Negligence – Discharge Delays and Billing Discrepancy – No Offence Made Out - Petitioner, an advocate, alleged wrongful confinement and cheating by Max Hospital during cashless insurance surgery – Dispute arose over excess billing and delay in discharge – Court held that while harassment due to discharge process is real, it does not constitute a cognizable criminal offence – Held: Offences under Sections 406, 420, 342 IPC not made out [Paras 1-10, 34-43].

Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – No Mens Rea or Misappropriation Found – Petition Dismissed - Hospital received partial pre-authorisation and asked for balance as per procedure – Adjustment and refund followed insurance approval – Delay explained by procedural necessity – Held: No fraudulent intent or wrongful gain shown, thus Sections 420 and 406 IPC not attracted [Paras 36-41].

Wrongful Restraint – Delay in Discharge Due to Insurance Clearance – No Mens Rea - Though patient’s discharge was delayed till evening, it coincided with insurance payment approval – Delay not intentional or coercive – Held: No prima facie offence under Section 342 IPC [Paras 42-43].

Public Policy Observation – Need for Regulatory Framework – Court Expresses Concern - Court noted growing patient distress due to delayed insurance approvals and discharge bottlenecks – Emphasised the need for a regulatory framework involving IRDA and medical councils – However, clarified that systemic issues don’t imply criminal culpability [Para 43].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Discharge of Respondents Upheld - The Court found no merit in challenging the discharge order passed by the ASJ – Summoning order rightly quashed – No interference warranted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 44-45].
 

Murder of Family Members – Conviction Upheld – Death Sentence Commuted – Appellant convicted for murder of his wife, parents, and minor son – Trial court awarded death penalty – High Court confirmed guilt based on eyewitnesses (PW-1 & PW-2), medical, ballistic and FSL evidence – However, death penalty commuted to life imprisonment for 20 years actual incarceration considering mitigating factors [Paras 1–20, 41–50, 74–75]. 
 
Eyewitnesses and Medical Evidence – Convincing – Injuries Ante-Mortem and Homicidal – Evidence from Ranjana Bai and her son corroborated by postmortem reports – Axe and gun injuries matched – FSL confirmed blood on appellant’s clothes and weapon – Firearm used in murder of minor son Shivyansh confirmed by presence of lead [Paras 12–31, 39–44]. 
 
Mitigating Circumstances – Intoxication, Mental State, and Reformation Potential – Death Commuted – Court found appellant was in an intoxicated state, habitual cannabis consumer – No prior criminal record – Surviving minor son and possibility of reformation considered – Held: Case does not fall under “rarest of rare” doctrine requiring capital punishment [Paras 55–75]. 
 
Sentencing Doctrine – Extensive Review of Rarest of Rare Jurisprudence – 
Balance Sheet Test Applied – Court elaborated on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Swamy Shraddananda, and Manoj v. MP principles – Applied balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors – Determined that alternative punishment of life imprisonment for 20 years was appropriate [Paras 52–73]. 
 
Final Decision – Death Sentence Set Aside – Life Imprisonment for 20 Years Imposed – Appellant’s conviction under IPC and Arms Act upheld – Sentence modified: death penalty commuted to life imprisonment (actual incarceration of 20 years), with concurrent sentences – Fine and other punishments unchanged [Para 75]. 
 

Family Law - Guardianship – Jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act – Territorial Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence – Dismissal of Revision - Wife filed guardianship petition claiming child under 5 years forcibly retained by husband’s family – Husband challenged maintainability on jurisdictional ground under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Held: Where child is under 5 years, presumed to reside with mother – Jurisdictional fact needs evidence – Not a pure question of law – Revision against rejection not maintainable [Paras 2–11].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Not Decidable under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Petitioner sought dismissal claiming minor resided outside Boudh district – Court held that ordinary residence is a factual issue needing inquiry – Cannot be decided solely on pleadings – Appropriate to be addressed during trial [Paras 7–10].

Applicable Precedents – Apex Court and High Court Decisions Considered – Kerala, Allahabad, and Supreme Court Rulings Applied - Court relied on Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, S. Prabhu v. Rajani R, and Sarabjit v. Piara Lal – Emphasized that child’s ordinary residence requires factual determination – Rejected applicability of contrary ruling in Dillip Kumar Behera v. Puspanjali Behera to present case [Paras 6, 10].

Revision – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Interference Declined – Trial Court Order Not Perverse - Family Court's rejection of husband’s objection found reasonable and legally sound – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC – Revision dismissed [Paras 11–13].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Tribunal – Interim Order Granting Mandatory Relief – Tribunal Overstepped Jurisdiction – Interim Order Set Aside - Tribunal stayed the termination of a highway concession agreement and directed the respondent-concessionaire to execute pending work and collect tolls – Court held that the Tribunal granted final relief at interim stage by restoring a determinable contract already terminated – Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction under Section 17 – Interim relief set aside [Paras 94–97].

Determinable Contract – Injunction Not Permissible – Contract Enforceability Barred by SRA - The concession agreement was found to be determinable under Clause 37 – Held: Specific performance barred under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act and injunction prohibited under Section 41(e) – Tribunal erred in granting relief that enforced a terminated contract [Paras 89–92, 96].

Infrastructure Projects – Bar on Injunctions under SRA – Sections 20A and 41(ha) Attracted - Even after provisional completion, respondent was obligated to perform ongoing O&M obligations and stage construction works – Court held: These are integral and continuous duties – Grant of injunction interferes with infrastructure services – Bar under SRA attracted [Paras 105–108].

Status Quo vs. Status Quo Ante – AT Misapplied Concept – Relief Was Restorative, Not Preservative - Tribunal’s order stayed a termination already effected and reversed project possession – Held: Relief amounted to status quo ante and restoration of contract – Not permissible at interim stage under settled law [Paras 67, 98].

Section 17 Application – SOC Not Prerequisite – AT Can Grant Relief Without Statement of Claim - Court clarified that Statement of Claim is not sine qua non for Section 17 relief – Tribunal had benefit of SOC before final order – NHAI not prejudiced [Paras 68–74].

Appeal under Section 37(2)(b) – Limited Interference – Tribunal Order Perverse – Appeal Allowed - Appellate Court reiterated its limited jurisdiction under Section 37(2)(b) – Found Tribunal’s directions contrary to law, overstepping jurisdiction and rewriting contract terms – Interim relief set aside [Paras 52–59, 114].

Civil Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Effect of Family Settlement – Maintainability of Release Application – Tenant’s Claim of Co-Ownership Rejected – The petitioner contended that he was not a tenant under respondent no.3 and had become co-owner by purchasing a part of the tenanted premises from respondent no.4 – Held: Based on oral family settlement between respondents no.3 and 4, the property was partitioned; thus, respondent no.3 became sole owner of a portion and could maintain a release application – Purchase by petitioner from respondent no.4 did not make him co-owner with respect to respondent no.3’s share – Relationship of landlord-tenant with respondent no.3 upheld [Paras 13-17].

Split Tenancy – Effect of Partial Ownership on Tenancy Rights – Tenancy Not Split – The petitioner argued that tenancy cannot be split and he became owner of the entire property – Held: The petitioner became owner only of the part sold by respondent no.4; tenancy continued in respect of the portion held by respondent no.3 – No legal bar on such bifurcation due to family settlement and specific sale deeds – Tenancy held to exist with respect to the portion claimed in release [Paras 13-18].

Bonafide Need – Comparative Hardship – Evidence-Based Findings – Release Upheld – Respondent no.3 sought release for starting business for himself and his sons – Appellate Court considered bonafide need, hardship, and lack of evidence from petitioner on alternative accommodation – Closure of petitioner’s sawmill noted – No perversity found in concurrent findings – Release affirmed [Paras 13-14].

Equitable Relief – No Rent Paid – Conduct of Tenant Considered – Equitable Jurisdiction Not Invoked – Petitioner failed to pay rent to either landlord – Court noted petitioner’s conduct and refused to grant discretionary relief under Article 226 – Equitable relief denied [Paras 15, 19].

Interference Under Article 226 – No Perverse or Arbitrary Finding – Scope Limited – Held: Appellate authority’s findings based on facts, evidence and legal principles – No perversity or arbitrariness shown – No ground made for judicial review under Article 226 – Petition dismissed [Paras 28-29].