Service Law - Probationary Service – Article 311(2) – Non-stigmatic termination during probation upheld – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 25-34].

Issues for Determination – Validity of initiation of disciplinary proceedings by competent authority – Compliance with principles of natural justice – Whether termination order is stigmatic/punitive attracting Article 311(2) – Court framed three core questions and proceeded on settled law governing probationers [Para 21].

Probationer’s Status & Article 311 – Distinction between confirmed employee and probationer – Judicial review narrower for probationers – Article 311 protections invoked only if termination is punitive/stigmatic – Employer may assess suitability during probation and terminate without full-scale inquiry if order is innocuous – Followed Rajasthan High Court v Ved Priya; T.C.M. Pillai; Jaswant Singh – Applied “foundation vs motive” test [Paras 25-29].

Nature of Termination Order – Language of termination letter recorded lack of “absolute integrity and devotion to duty” as employer’s dissatisfaction during probation – No specific imputation/findings of misconduct forming the foundation – Held: not stigmatic; merely articulates what is implicit in probationary termination – Pavanendra Narayan Verma principle reiterated [Paras 31-32].

Natural Justice & Enquiry Fairness – Petitioner was served charge-sheet, replied, and initially participated – No material to substantiate inability to attend for want of TA/DA – Two committees (Internal Complaint & Internal Finance) conducted fact-finding; Enquiry Officer’s report placed before authority – For probationary assessment, “less formal” process with adequate opportunity suffices – No mala fides or serious procedural breach found [Paras 15-16, 22, 32].

Competency of Authorities – Petitioner’s challenge to AGM(HR)/CGM(Tech) competence under Schedule of Delegation rejected in effect—respondents showed delegation permitting AGM-level signatures for specified grades; in any event, outcome turned on non-stigmatic probationary termination rather than imposition of a major penalty [Paras 17-18, 23, 32].

Relief & Alternate Remedy – Plea for quashing charge-sheet/termination and reinstatement declined – Court found proceedings aimed at suitability assessment; writ not entertained on asserted technicalities in absence of prejudice or punitive foundation [Paras 30, 32-33].

Decision – Both writ petitions WPA 7478 of 2018 and WPA 25707 of 2017 dismissed – No illegality or impropriety in termination dated 08/12/2017; urgent certified copy direction issued [Paras 34-35].

Succession Law – Letters of Administration – Second Grant on basis of Forged Will – Fraud on Court – Revocation Allowed – Probate of Will dated 4th April 1993 in favour of Dr. Feroze Duggan attained finality up to Supreme Court – Respondent suppressed material facts and obtained second Letters of Administration in 2022 on alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 – Held: Law does not permit successive grants over same estate; grant obtained by fraud and suppression of heirs is void ab initio – Letters of Administration dated 03.06.2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17.06.2022 annulled – Exemplary costs imposed; suo motu contempt and criminal proceedings directed [Paras 86–89, 112].

Fraud on Court – Effect – Any proceeding obtained by deliberate deception stands vitiated – Court reaffirmed that “fraud unravels everything” – Principle of finality cannot shield fraudulent grants – Fraudulent averments in Petition and false affidavit constitute abuse of process; Court duty-bound to set aside such grant [Paras 88, 108–110].

Caveatable Interest – Locus of Executors and Legal Heirs – Section 213 Succession Act – Petitioners as executors and Class II heirs of Dr. Feroze Duggan held to have locus to seek revocation – Even persons acquiring interest after testator’s death entitled to move revocation – Challenge to locus by Respondent and alleged wife of Dr. Feroze Duggan rejected [Paras 90–91, 99–101].

Suspicious Circumstances – Forged Will – Unnatural Conduct – Respondent relied on alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 with vague language, unidentified attesting witnesses, contradictory explanations of delay, and unproved mortgage deed – Held: Improbable that testatrix who executed valid Will on 4th April 1993 with eminent witnesses would execute contradictory Will two days later – Delay of 29 years fatal – Circumstances establish fabrication [Paras 92–97, 102–103].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Misrepresentation – Respondent falsely averred absence of legal heirs despite acknowledging grandchildren – Misleading averments treated Petition as uncontested – Court condemned suppression as deliberate fraud; initiated action under Section 340 CrPC equivalent provisions of BNS/BNSn – Exemplary costs imposed to deter frivolous litigation [Paras 35–38, 110–112].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Letters of Administration dated 03.06.2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17.06.2022 cancelled – Registrar of Sub-Assurances directed to rectify records – Respondent saddled with costs of ₹25 lakhs – Suo motu contempt notice issued for breach of court orders – Prothonotary directed to lodge complaint for offences under BNS 2023 – Compliance to be reported every three months [Paras 112–113].

Lease Agreement – COVID-19 – Force Majeure Clause – Appeal Dismissed – Rent partially waived for lockdown period – Liquidated damages and penal rent claims rejected due to lack of actual loss – Amendment to Section 10 of Specific Relief Act held inapplicable to pre-2018 contracts [Paras 26-27, 44-46, 60-68].

Force Majeure – Lease Interpretation – Clause 12 invoked during COVID-19 – Pandemic held to be covered under “Act of God” and “Embargo” – Court upheld that the conditions in Clause 12 were illustrative, not exhaustive – Held: Lockdown restrictions justified non-payment of rent for April and May 2020 [Paras 26-27, 46-48].

Penalty Clauses – Clauses 14.2 and 7.2 – Claim for six months’ additional rent and double rent rejected – Held: No breach committed by lessee, and liquidated damages require proof of actual loss under Sections 73 & 74 of Contract Act – Contractual amount is upper limit; reasonable compensation necessary – Penal rent not awarded [Paras 39-46, 54-58].

Specific Relief – Retrospective Application – Amended Section 10 of Specific Relief Act not applicable to contracts executed before 01.10.2018 – Held: Court’s discretion in granting relief retained under pre-amendment law – SC decisions in Katta Sujatha Reddy and Daivasigamani relied upon [Paras 60-71].

Equitable Apportionment – Shared Burden of Pandemic – Court awarded 50% rent for April–May 2020 – Justified on ground that both lessor and lessee suffered economic hardship – Held: Equitable solution in absence of rent waiver agreement [Paras 52-53].

Summary Judgment – Maintainability – Application under Order XIII-A filed by appellant – Appellant estopped from arguing that suit required trial – Court justified in granting limited relief and rejecting exaggerated claims without trial [Para 74].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Force majeure clause rightly applied – No penal or double rent awarded – Rent granted at 50% for April–May 2020 and full rent from June 2020 to December 2020 – Interest and GST arrears also awarded – Decree of Single Judge upheld in entirety [Paras 51, 73, 75-76].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Deposit of Minimum 20% Compensation – Discretion of Appellate Court – Applicants challenged order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% of cheque amount while granting suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Contention: requirement not mandatory and could not be imposed after suspension of sentence – Held: As per Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2024 INSC 1046, read with Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, and Jamboo Bhandari v. MP Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., appellate court has discretion to impose such condition, but ordinarily deposit of 20% is mandatory unless case is exceptional – Word “may” in Section 148(1) to be construed as “shall” in substance – Direction to deposit 20% is valid and within jurisdiction of appellate court even if imposed subsequently [Paras 6–11, 17].

Statutory Interpretation – ‘May’ and ‘Shall’ – Legislative Intent – Court held that though Section 148(1) NI Act uses both “may” and “shall”, their context indicates different purposes: “may” gives discretion to order deposit, “shall” makes the minimum quantum of deposit mandatory once discretion is exercised – Legislative intent was to ensure partial realization of compensation to complainant during pendency of appeal – Discretion must be exercised judiciously with recorded reasons where exemption from deposit is granted [Paras 8, 10–12, 17].

Criminal Procedure – Power to Impose Deposit Condition After Suspension of Sentence – Contention that deposit order could be passed only at the time of suspension of sentence rejected – Appellate court retains jurisdiction to direct deposit any time during pendency of appeal until final disposal – Purpose of Section 148 NI Act is to secure fair compensation and discourage protraction of appeals [Paras 7, 15–16].

Judicial Precedents – Harmonisation – High Court reconciled Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises – Held: condition of 20% deposit is ordinarily mandatory; relaxation only in exceptional cases where deposit would cause grave injustice or deprive right of appeal; reasons must be recorded [Paras 6, 11–13].

Decision:

Criminal revision application dismissed – Order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% compensation upheld – Rule discharged.

Bail – MPID Act Offence – ₹377 crore fraud – Bail Rejected – Applicant, a Director of A.S. Agri & Aqua LLP, allegedly induced gullible investors with promises of doubled returns and crores of rupees per year – Investigation revealed siphoning of deposits, seizure of incriminating records, and similar antecedents – Court held gravity of offence, scale of fraud, and applicant’s role outweigh bail considerations – Bail application dismissed [Paras 18–22].

Arrest Grounds – Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1) – Compliance sufficient if grounds conveyed – Applicant argued violation for want of written arrest grounds – Held: Since arrest was prior to SC ruling in Pankaj Bansal (03.10.2023), requirement of written grounds not mandatory – Communication through remand report and diary entries adequate – No demonstrable prejudice shown – Argument rejected [Paras 13–17].

Parity – Bail to Co-accused – Principle not Applicable – Applicant sought bail citing co-accused released by Trial Court – State has challenged their bail orders – Court held scale of fraud and applicant’s antecedents make parity inapplicable – Rejection sustained [Para 20].

MPID Act – Objective – Protection of Depositors – Court observed the scheme was not a genuine business venture but a unilateral promise of fixed returns – Precisely the mischief MPID Act intends to prevent – Bail denied in larger public interest [Paras 19, 21].

Decision – Bail Application No. 4116/2024 rejected – No case for exercise of discretion under Section 439 CrPC – Applicant to remain in custody pending trial [Para 22].

Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Calcutta HC upholds Magistrate’s order showing petitioner as absconder in municipal forgery case despite his compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice; revision dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Magistrate’s Order – Petitioner shown as absconder in charge-sheet despite compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice – Held: compliance with notice does not bar Magistrate from issuing warrant if IO records non-availability during search – No ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-11].

Forgery Allegations – Building Plan Sanction – Inspection Book Records – Allegations of forged municipal inspection records to obtain 5-storied building plan where only 3 permitted – Charge-sheet filed against petitioner/developers – Whether forgery committed to be tested in trial – Revisional Court will not evaluate merits at pre-trial stage [Paras 2-3, 10].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 442 BNSS – High Court’s power exceptional and sparing – Interference only in case of manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice – No error found in Magistrate’s order; casual handwriting lapse in prior order not sufficient for intervention [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s order dated 29.07.2025 issuing warrant of arrest sustained – Revision petition dismissed; trial to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 11-12].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Compensation Enhancement – National Highways Act – Notification under Section 3A issued for acquisition of land for widening of NH-44 – Competent Authority awarded compensation @ ₹1220.88 per sq.m. – Petitioner sought higher compensation citing sale deeds of adjacent lands – Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) rejected claim relying on outdated land value and held ₹1220.88 sufficient – Writ Petition filed challenging arbitrator’s award – Held: Arbitrator failed to consider relevant, proximate sale exemplars and committed perversity in rejecting valid comparative sale deeds – Interference under Article 226 justified [Paras 5–9]

Land Valuation – Comparable Sale Deeds – Petitioner produced registered sale deed of land (3.5 km away) sold for ₹3,716.88 per sq.m. – Arbitrator held land not proximate and refused reliance – Court held land situated along same highway stretch and relevant to determine market value – Nearby sales with similar characteristics should not have been ignored – Arbitrator failed to appreciate essential principles for market value determination [Paras 7–8]

Arbitration under NH Act – Section 3G(5) – Scope of Judicial Review – Award of Arbitrator challenged under Article 226 – Held: Though arbitrator’s decision generally not interfered with under Article 226, writ jurisdiction can be exercised when award is perverse, unreasonable or against settled legal principles – In this case, Arbitrator ignored cogent sale evidence and relied on stale collector rate – Interference warranted [Paras 6–9]

Principles – Market Value Determination – Reliance on Collector Rates deprecated – Reiterated that collector rates do not reflect actual market value – Comparable sale method is preferred – Time proximity, location, similarity of land, and size of transaction are key factors – Failure to consider these vitiates award [Para 8]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Land acquisition deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Possession and compensation requirements not satisfied – Respondents restrained from interfering with petitioner’s possession – Liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law if required.

Service Law - Human Rights Commission – Chairperson’s pension entitlement – Rule 4 of 2002 Rules (as amended 2012) – “Parity clause” ensures equivalence with Chief Justice but does not create right to dual pensions – Legislative policy of “one career, one pension” affirmed – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 15–18, 23–27].

Pension – Legal Nature – Not a bounty but statutory right – Flows from Article 300A – Must be authorised by law – No pension dehors statutory framework – Once statutory entitlement exhausted, no further right to cumulative pensions unless expressly legislated [Paras 15–15.2].

Pension – Purpose – Secures dignified livelihood in retirement – Cannot be construed as enabling augmentation through multiple streams – Benevolent object subject to fiscal discipline – Interpretation must remain within statutory limits [Para 15.2].

Multiple Pensions – Policy against “pension stacking” – Principle of “one career, one pension” runs through Judges’ Acts, CCS Rules, and RCS Rules – Multiplicity of pensions impermissible unless statute clearly allows – Dual entitlements rejected [Paras 16, 16.1–16.3].

High Court Judges Act, 1954 – Section 14 proviso – Pension in lieu of and not in addition to prior pension – Express statutory signal against dual pensions – Applied analogously to SHRC framework [Para 16.2].

CCS & RCS Pension Rules – Both Central and State frameworks (1972, 1996, 2021) prohibit earning of two pensions for same service/post – Harmonious interpretation requires SHRC Rules to be read in consonance – Only one pension permissible [Para 16.3].

Rule 4, Rajasthan SHRC Rules (as amended 2012) – Language “salary, allowances, facilities and pension shall be the same as Chief Justice/Judge” is referential and parity-based – Not constitutive of new pension – Designed to avoid disadvantage, not to confer duplication [Paras 17.1–17.3].

Rule 4, First Proviso – Protective clause – Prevents variation of allowances/pension to disadvantage after appointment – Shields incumbents but does not create second pensionary stream [Para 17.3].

Rule 4, Second Proviso – Salary of Chairperson to be reduced by amount of pre-existing pension/commutation/gratuity – Express mechanism of adjustment – Demonstrates legislative intent against double pension – Ensures parity without duplication [Para 17.4].

Comparative Tribunals – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; AFT Rules, 2009; Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 – All adopt “pay reduced by pension” model – Explicitly prohibit additional pension – Petitioner himself served as AFT Chairperson under same rule – Dual claim untenable [Paras 17.6–17.7].

Judicial Analogy – District Judges elevated to High Courts and SC Judges serving in Tribunals draw only one pension based on last substantive office – No multiplicity permitted – Applied to reject claim [Para 17.7].

Lokayukta Precedent – Justice Mahendra Bhushan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2001) distinguished – Lokayukta Act & 1974 Rules contained express pension provision – SHRC Rules silent – Single Judge did not consider dual pension question – Ratio not binding – Precedent inapplicable [Para 18].

Reliance on SC Cases – Gurnam Singh (1982) and Shardul Singh (1970) – Pension integral to “conditions of service” – Ratio accepted in principle but held inapplicable – Do not confer dual pension entitlement [Para 19].

Constitutional Challenge – Articles 14, 16, 21 – Denial of dual pension neither arbitrary nor discriminatory – Rational classification based on statutory design – Right to dignified life already secured by existing pension under Judges’ Act – No violation made out [Para 21.3].

Legitimate Expectation – Internal Finance Department notings cannot create enforceable expectation – No past practice of granting dual pensions to SHRC Chairpersons – Doctrine inapplicable [Para 21.2].

Comparative Jurisprudence – UK, US, Canada, Germany, Cyprus, Pakistan, EU – All disfavor multiple pensions unless explicitly legislated – Approaches range from strict prohibition (Pakistan, EU) to capped accumulation (Germany) – Supports single-pension model [Paras 21.4, 22].

Decision – Chairperson of SHRC not entitled to separate pension in addition to judicial pension already drawn – Rule 4 is a parity clause, not source of new entitlement – Petition dismissed – No costs [Paras 23–23.2].

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Ss.148 & 282 – reassessment notice sent by speed post (not registered post) without affixation – presumption of service u/s 27 GCA inapplicable – strict compliance mandatory – ITAT order set aside, reassessment quashed.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Service of Notice – Speed Post Not Equivalent to Registered Post – Appeal Allowed – Tribunal presumed valid service u/s 148 merely because envelope not traceable – Held: Strict compliance mandatory; presumption u/s 27 GCA applies only to registered post, not speed post – Notice through speed post without acknowledgment is insufficient for deemed service [Paras 13-21, 32, 35].

Procedure – Affixation of Notice – Requirement under Section 282 IT Act & Order V Rule 17 CPC – Inspector’s report showed assessee untraceable but no affixation was done – Held: Mandatory requirement not followed; service invalid [Para 36].

Statutory Interpretation – Taxing Statutes – Strict Construction – Service of notice u/s 148 is jurisdictional precondition – cannot be presumed or liberally construed – Jharkhand HC view in Milan Poddar (speed post = registered post) not accepted – Allahabad HC requires strict registered post service [Paras 19-21, 32].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – ITAT order dated 16.11.2011 set aside – Service of notice u/s 148 held invalid – Reassessment for AY 2002-03 unsustainable [Paras 35-37].