Criminal Law – Discharge – Re-allotment of Institutional Plot – Former Chief Minister ordered re-allotment of resumed plot to AJL at original rates plus interest – Decision ratified unanimously by Authority – No court declared re-allotment illegal – No material showing wrongful loss or pecuniary gain – Held: Essential ingredients of Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) PC Act not prima facie made out – Charges set aside – Accused discharged [Paras 10-10.5, 14].

Criminal Conspiracy – Requirement of Meeting of Minds – Mere request for restoration by AJL and independent decision by Chief Minister after seeking official inputs – No evidence of agreement to commit illegal act – No material indicating conscious concurrence to cause wrongful loss – Held: Ingredients of Section 120-B IPC absent [Paras 9.1, 10.2].

Cheating – Dishonest Inducement – Re-allotment order not declared illegal – Entire re-allotment price and extension fee paid – No proven wrongful loss to Authority – No false representation or dishonest inducement established – Held: Offence under Section 420 IPC not attracted [Paras 9.2, 10.3-10.4].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Abuse of Official Position – Passing order contrary to policy or official notings does not by itself establish dishonest intention – No evidence of illegal gratification – No ascertainable pecuniary advantage established in absence of proof of actual loss – Ratification by Authority confers validity from inception – Held: Criminal misconduct not prima facie made out [Paras 10.5-10.7, 36-37].

Public Policy Violation – Criminal Liability – Violation of policy guidelines or departure from legal opinion cannot ipso facto constitute criminal misconduct unless accompanied by dishonest intention or unlawful gain – Reliance placed on C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State (CBI) – Held: Error of judgment or policy deviation not equivalent to corruption [Paras 10.6].

Framing of Charge – Scope of Judicial Scrutiny – Trial Court must examine whether material discloses essential ingredients of alleged offences – Assumptions regarding escalation of property value or speculative loss insufficient – Framing charge on conjectures impermissible – Impugned order held perverse [Paras 9.4, 13-13.2].

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Applicability – Offences allegedly committed prior to amendment – Trial to proceed under unamended provisions – Amendment does not bar prosecution for prior acts – Reliance on State of Telangana v. Managipet @ Sarveshwar Reddy – Objection rejected [Para 11].

Mortgage of Re-allotted Property – Subsequent act of mortgaging with prior permission of Authority – No violation of allotment conditions shown – No nexus with alleged conspiracy in re-allotment – Cannot infer criminal intention from subsequent mortgage [Para 10.8].

Decision: Both criminal revision petitions allowed – Orders dated 16.04.2021 framing charges and dismissing discharge application set aside – All subsequent proceedings quashed – Petitioners discharged – Pending applications disposed of.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Transfer of Objection Petitions – Seat of Arbitration – Statutory Arbitration under National Highways Act – Lands situated at Amritsar acquired – Arbitrator (Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar) appointed by Central Government notification – Arbitration proceedings conducted at Jalandhar and Award signed and pronounced at Jalandhar – Held: Once seat of arbitration is fixed, Courts at seat alone have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction – Objections under Section 34 maintainable only at Jalandhar – Transfer applications seeking transfer to Amritsar dismissed [Paras discussing BGS SGS Soma, Hindustan Construction Co., BBR (India)].

Seat vs Venue – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Even in statutory arbitration where parties did not choose seat by agreement – If arbitration proceedings conducted at a particular place without objection and Award pronounced there – Such place constitutes juridical seat – Exclusive jurisdiction follows – Filing of earlier objections at another place does not attract Section 42 once seat is determined [Paras referring to Section 20 and Section 42].

Policy Decision of NHAI dated 11.10.2021 – Filing objections where land acquired – Earlier transfer orders based on said policy – Held: Policy formulated in ignorance of settled law regarding seat of arbitration – Once law declared by Supreme Court clarifies exclusive jurisdiction of seat court – Policy cannot override statutory mandate and judicial precedent – Transfer cannot be granted merely on basis of administrative convenience [Paras discussing policy and Madanjit Kaur case].

Statutory Notification appointing Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar as Arbitrator – Argument that notification did not expressly fix seat – Rejected – Conduct of proceedings, participation of parties and pronouncement of Award at Jalandhar amounts to fixation of seat – Absence of earlier objection precludes challenge to jurisdiction at later stage [Paras on notification dated 23.06.2022].

Effect of Yashpreet Singh case and SLP order – Supreme Court declined interference but clarified territorial jurisdiction to be decided independently – Held: Non-challenge to certain subordinate court orders does not dilute binding law laid down in BGS SGS Soma and other Supreme Court precedents – Seat principle prevails [Paras discussing Yashpreet Singh and subsequent orders].

Decision: All 17 transfer applications dismissed – Objection petitions under Section 34 to proceed before competent Courts at Jalandhar.

Employees’ Compensation – Disability Certificate – Issuance by Non-Treating Doctor – Commissioner rejected compensation claim solely on ground that disability certificate was issued by doctor who had not attended the injured – Act requires certificate by “qualified medical practitioner” under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 2(1)(i) – No provision mandates that certificate must be issued only by treating doctor – Qualified medical practitioner can assess disability on basis of medical records and is subject to cross-examination – Rejection of entire claim including findings on employer-employee relationship and accident in course of employment solely on this ground held erroneous – Matter remanded for limited purpose of determining percentage of loss of earning capacity – Other issues held concluded and not open for reconsideration [Paras 9-14, 16].

Substantial Question of Law – Framing at Appellate Stage – Whether Commissioner was justified in rejecting application solely because disability certificate was issued by doctor who did not treat injured – Question answered in negative in favour of appellant – Impugned order set aside – Commissioner directed to assess disability and compute compensation on basis of evidence already on record within stipulated time [Paras 2, 16-18].

Precedent – Reliance on Karnataka High Court Decision – Held that there is no statutory bar to consideration of deposition of qualified medical practitioner who examined claimant though not treating doctor – Decision in Mukesh Kumar v. Kulhari Tours and Travels Prof. Mahipal Singh & Anr. followed [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 19 June 2012 set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner for limited purpose of determining loss of earning capacity and calculating compensation – Other findings not to be reopened – Commissioner directed to dispose of application by 30 June 2026.

Devaswom Board – Temple Administration – Welfare of Temple Animals – Complaint regarding deplorable condition of Gosala at Vaikom Mahadeva Temple – Allegation of starvation, inadequate shelter, poor drainage, lack of veterinary care and non-appointment of full-time cowherd – Ombudsman’s Report No.48/2025 placed before Court – Photographs and Advocate Commissioner’s report revealed pathetic condition of bulls and cows donated by devotees through ritual ‘nadayiruthal’ – Held: Travancore Devaswom Board has shown little priority to welfare of animals and systemic lapses require immediate corrective measures [Paras 2–9].

Animal Welfare – Religious Significance of Nandi – Court referred to Nandi Upapurana describing Nandi as vahana and foremost devotee of Lord Shiva – Observed that bulls and cows in temple premises are objects of reverence and their neglect is shocking and disturbing – Temple authorities bound to ensure dignity, hygiene and proper care of animals donated by devotees [Paras 10–11].

Administrative Accountability – Directions to Devaswom Board – Court directed designation of specific Administrative Officer responsible for Gosala maintenance – Mandated repairs to cowshed, separate feeding spaces for bulls and cows, proper drainage and ventilation, appointment of full-time cowherd (Gopalakan), enhancement of fodder arrangements and opening of separate bank account exclusively for Gosala maintenance – Officer made directly answerable to Court and liable for lapses – Ombudsman directed to conduct regular and surprise inspections [Paras 12–14].

Policy Direction – Long-term Measures – Board permitted to retain one bull symbolically at Vaikom and shift others to Kalikavu Bull Protection Centre – Directed to complete repairs at Kalikavu within three months – Board advised to prepare comprehensive master plan for establishment and maintenance of Gosalas in Siva temples using dedicated funds and sponsorships [Paras 13–14].

Decision: DBP disposed of with detailed mandatory directions – Compliance affidavit to be filed within three months – Matter posted for compliance report on 25/05/2026.

Employees’ State Insurance – Damages under Section 85-B – Limitation – No express limitation prescribed for passing order under Section 85-B – Contribution for period 1972–1989 paid on 07.09.2000 – Damages imposed on 16.04.2014 – Delay of 14 years – Held: Even in absence of express statutory limitation, power must be exercised within reasonable period – Five years considered reasonable based on scheme of Act – Order passed beyond reasonable period unsustainable [Paras 21–26, 33].

Reasonable Period – Determination – Penal civil liability – Where statute confers power without prescribing limitation, such power must be exercised within reasonable time – Second proviso to Section 45-A (five-year limit), Regulation 32 (five-year record retention) and proviso to Explanation (b) to Section 77(1A) provide legislative guidance – Five years treated as reasonable benchmark for Section 85-B proceedings [Paras 23–25].

Interest Proceedings – Distinction from Damages – Pendency of interest proceedings and litigation regarding rate of interest does not justify delay in initiating damages – Damages levied for delayed contribution, not for interest – Hence, independent cause – Fourteen-year delay unexplained and unreasonable [Paras 27–28].

Welfare Legislation – Penal Provisions – Deterrence – Though ESI Act is beneficial social legislation, penalty provisions cannot be invoked after inordinate delay – Certainty in litigation required – Deterrent effect diluted if invoked after long lapse of time [Para 30].

Scope of Judgment – Court proceeded on assumption that no express limitation exists for Section 85-B – Question whether express limitation is otherwise provided kept open for adjudication in appropriate case [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Substantial question of law answered against the appellant-Corporation and in favour of respondent-Gymkhana – Order of ESI Court quashing damages upheld – Statutory authorities expected to act within reasonable time henceforth.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Confirmed – Accused Nos.1 and 2 convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for inflicting multiple sword blows on vital parts of deceased – Ocular evidence of wife (PW-2) corroborated by independent witness (PW-5) regarding chase with blood-stained swords – Medical evidence established homicidal death due to penetrating chest injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Recovery of swords under Section 27 Evidence Act and FSL report confirming deceased’s blood on weapons and clothes of accused – Held: Complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 23, 26, 29, 36].

Ocular Evidence – Related Witness – Minor Contradictions – Testimony of complainant-wife found substantially reliable despite minor discrepancies regarding sequence and attribution of blows – Such variations held natural in traumatic incident – Core prosecution case remained intact and corroborated by independent evidence – Principle of “sifting grain from chaff” applied [Paras 14, 26-27].

Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery of Weapon – Swords recovered at instance of accused from bushes – Even though some panch witnesses partly hostile, recovery sustained through panchnama, Investigating Officer’s testimony and FSL corroboration – Discovery distinctly connected with information given by accused – Recovery held reliable incriminating circumstance [Paras 20, 30-31].

FSL Evidence – Blood Stains – Serological report established deceased’s blood group on clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 and on recovered swords – Accused failed to explain incriminating circumstance in Section 313 CrPC statements – Adverse inference drawn – Scientific evidence formed clinching link in chain [Paras 22, 32].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Prior quarrel and threats established motive – Accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly chased and assaulted deceased with deadly weapons on vital parts – Acts done with knowledge and intention likely to cause death – Offence squarely falls under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – No Exception to Section 300 attracted [Paras 13, 23, 29].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Interference – Accused No.3 acquitted of charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Evidence insufficient to establish shared common intention to commit murder – Her role limited to quarrel and assault on complainant – Applying principles in Chandrappa and Rajesh Prasad, no perversity found in acquittal – State appeal dismissed [Paras 33-35, 36.1].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal No.1515 of 2013 (by accused Nos.1 and 2) dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine confirmed – Accused to surrender within six weeks.

Criminal Appeal No.1315 of 2013 (by State against acquittal of accused No.3) dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Service Law – Suspension on Arrest – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Claim for Full Pay and Allowances – Petitioner ANM placed under suspension from 1/9/1999 after arrest in criminal case under Sections 307, 294, 341 & 34 IPC – Convicted by Trial Court and later acquitted by High Court in appeal – Suspension period treated as on duty for all purposes except pay and allowances – Held: Suspension was under deeming provision of Rule 9(2)(a) of Rules, 1966 on account of custody beyond 48 hours – Such suspension cannot be termed wholly unjustified merely because of subsequent acquittal – Full pay and allowances admissible only when competent authority records finding that suspension was wholly unjustified under FR 54-B(3) – No such finding recorded – Petition dismissed [Paras 8-11, 19].

Fundamental Rule 54-B – Scope and Interpretation – Payment of Back Wages – FR 54-B(3) mandates payment of full pay and allowances only if suspension is found wholly unjustified – Discretion lies with competent authority – Where suspension is statutory consequence of arrest and prosecution not initiated at instance of department, denial of full back wages justified – Employer cannot be burdened for period services were not rendered due to employee’s involvement in criminal case [Paras 9-11, 15-16].

Back Wages after Acquittal – Criminal Prosecution not at Department’s Instance – Supreme Court Precedents – Relied on Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Gujarat Electricity Board and Union of India v. Jaipal Singh – Held: If employee involved in criminal case in personal capacity and department not responsible for prosecution, reinstatement on acquittal does not automatically entitle employee to back wages – Each case to be considered on its own facts – Suspension during pendency of trial and appeal not wholly unjustified [Paras 12-16].

Long Suspension – Stages of Proceedings – Gurpal Singh Case Distinguished – Apex Court held that suspension during trial and pendency of appeal cannot be termed wholly unjustified – Only suspension beyond reasonable stage without justification may attract full pay – In present case, suspension continued till retirement due to criminal proceedings – No stage shown where suspension became wholly unjustified [Para 17].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 25/1/2019 treating suspension period as on duty except for full pay and allowances upheld – Petitioner not entitled to full pay and allowances for suspension period.

Civil Procedure – Restoration of Appeal – Dismissal for Default – Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of plaintiff and counsel – Application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC filed by advocate along with affidavit – Delay of 90 days sought to be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Lower appellate Court dismissed applications holding advocate cannot file sworn affidavit on behalf of party – Held: Advocate holding vakalatnama is competent to file affidavit in matters within his knowledge and to present restoration petition – Impugned orders set aside – Appeal directed to be restored and disposed of on merits [Paras 9-12].

Advocate’s Authority – Scope of Vakalatnama – Order III Rule 1 CPC – Advocate duly authorized by vakalatnama can make appearance, application or act on behalf of client – No absolute prohibition on advocate filing affidavit in support of application when facts are within his knowledge – Advocate assumes role of witness and may be subjected to cross-examination if necessary – Practice of rejecting petitions solely on ground that affidavit filed by counsel is unsustainable [Paras 10-12].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Section 5 Limitation Act – Petition for restoration filed with delay of 90 days – Dismissal of delay petition solely on ground of affidavit filed by counsel held erroneous – Courts should adopt liberal approach where dismissal occurred due to counsel’s default and party should not suffer for fault of agent – Delay condonation and restoration petitions held maintainable [Paras 6, 10-12].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance on earlier decisions of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Courts – Ratio in T. Krishnaswamy v. Maniyamma and other decisions clarifies competence of advocate to file affidavit – Contrary reliance on Premier Chemical Industries case distinguished – Lower Court failed to properly appreciate settled legal position [Paras 10-11].

Decision: C.M.A. No.466 of 2019 and C.R.P. No.1932 of 2019 allowed – Orders dated 02.04.2019 in I.A. Nos.736 and 737 of 2017 in A.S. No.35 of 2017 set aside – Lower appellate Court directed to restore appeal and dispose of same on merits expeditiously – Petitioner directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Commercial Suit – Order VI Rule 15A CPC – Statement of Truth – Non-compliance – Whether fatal – Trial Court dismissed suit as not maintainable for failure to file Statement of Truth and proper attestation – However, after full trial, evidence led and findings on merits returned in favour of plaintiff for principal sum – Held, requirement though mandatory is procedural and defect is curable – Procedural law is handmaid of justice – In absence of prejudice and after adjudication on merits, dismissal solely on technical defect unsustainable [Paras 21-25].

Order VI Rule 15A(5) CPC – Discretion to Strike Out Pleadings – Use of expression “may” confers discretion – Striking off pleadings not automatic consequence of non-compliance – Judgment in M/s A.V. Industries distinguished as rendered in context of ex parte decree and different factual matrix – In present case, plaintiff undertook to cure defect – Held, discretion ought to have been exercised to permit rectification [Para 26].

Commercial Dispute – Conversion from Summary Suit – Suit initially filed under Order XXXVII CPC and later treated as commercial suit – Omission to file Statement of Truth attributable to change in procedural regime – Defect does not go to root of jurisdiction nor render proceedings void ab initio – Held, opportunity to comply with Order VI Rule 15A to be granted [Paras 25, 27].

Recovery Suit – Findings on Merits – Trial Court, on appreciation of ledger, invoices, dishonoured cheques and oral evidence, held plaintiff entitled to principal sum of Rs. 29,64,404/- but denied relief solely due to procedural non-compliance – Held, once merits adjudicated in favour of plaintiff, dismissal of suit on curable defect amounts to elevating form over substance [Paras 13-14, 24, 27].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 06.10.2023 set aside – Plaintiff granted four weeks to file appropriate application to comply with Order VI Rule 15A CPC – Trial Court directed to pass fresh decree in terms of findings on Issue Nos. 3 and 4 and determine pendente lite and future interest in accordance with law – Appeal disposed of.