Territorial Jurisdiction – Transfer of Proceedings – Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Retention of Case at Principal Bench of CAT – Validity of Chairman’s Order – Part of the Cause of Action Arising in Delhi – Petition Challenging the Retention of the Case by the Principal Bench of CAT dismissed – The respondent sought transfer from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, to Patna, Bihar, on spouse grounds, relying on departmental circulars – The Tribunal Chairman, exercising powers under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, allowed the retention of proceedings in Delhi – The petitioners (CAGI & Ors.) challenged the decision, contending that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi – Held: The CAGI’s circular required that requests for transfer on spouse grounds, if rejected, be forwarded to the Headquarters (Delhi) for a final decision – Since part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, the Principal Bench had jurisdiction to retain the matter [Paras 10-22].

Jurisdiction of CAT – Cause of Action – Rule 6(1)(ii) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 – Principles for Determining Jurisdiction – The High Court reaffirmed that the jurisdictional question must be determined based on the pleadings in the original application and the applicable legal provisions – The term “cause of action” includes all material facts necessary to establish a right to relief – As the respondent sought relief from the CAGI, whose headquarters are in Delhi, part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of CAT – The Tribunal’s decision to retain jurisdiction was upheld [Paras 8-20].

Power of Chairman to Transfer Cases – Independent Authority of Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – The High Court rejected the argument that the Tribunal Chairman could not retain a case while a jurisdictional objection was pending before another bench – Section 25 provides an independent power to transfer or retain cases without being subject to other provisions – The Chairman acted within his statutory authority in allowing the transfer petition and retaining the case in Delhi [Paras 5-7].

Challenge to Jurisdiction – Application of Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Determination Based on Pleadings – The High Court held that jurisdiction should be examined on the principles governing Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC – The petitioners’ argument that the Principal Bench lacked jurisdiction was rejected, as the respondent’s claim was partly dependent on a decision from CAGI Headquarters in Delhi [Paras 9-13].

Final Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – No Interference with CAT’s Order – The High Court concluded that the Tribunal’s decision to retain the case in Delhi was legally justified – The challenge to the order was dismissed, with an observation that the Tribunal must independently decide the merits of the case without being influenced by jurisdictional considerations [Paras 23-26].
 

Maintenance – Right of Wife Despite Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Husband contended that wife voluntarily deserted him, making her ineligible for maintenance—Held: Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not disentitle wife from maintenance unless husband proves willful desertion—Maintenance order upheld [Paras 6-9].

Quantum of Maintenance – Whether Excessive Given Husband’s Financial Condition – Husband argued that he earned only ₹21,167 per month, making maintenance of ₹9,000 excessive—Held: Trial court correctly considered financial capacity—No reduction warranted [Paras 10-12].

Effective Date of Maintenance – Whether Payable from Date of Application – Husband challenged retrospective applicability—Held: Maintenance is payable from the date of application unless special circumstances exist—No error in trial court’s order [Paras 13-15].

Final Decision – Revision dismissed – Maintenance order upheld—Arrears to be cleared within three months [Paras 16-18].

Service Law - Gratuity Entitlement – Badli Worker – Continuous Service – Held: A worker engaged as a badli (substitute) in permanent positions for 38 years is entitled to gratuity – The employer failed to produce service records, leading to an adverse inference – Controlling Authority’s order directing payment upheld [Paras 1, 17-19].

Employer’s Duty to Maintain Records – Adverse Inference – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Held: Section 25D mandates that an employer must maintain records of workers’ attendance – Failure to produce such records allows the court to presume continuous service – Adverse inference drawn against the employer [Paras 12, 16-17].

Burden of Proof – Evidence Act – Employer’s Obligation – Held: The burden of proof regarding continuous service lies on the employer – The employer’s failure to present attendance records resulted in a presumption in favor of the employee – Reference to Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 [Paras 12, 16].

Interest on Gratuity – Payment of Gratuity Act – Held: Under Section 7(3A), the employee is entitled to interest on delayed gratuity payments – Employer directed to pay the principal gratuity amount along with accrued interest [Paras 6, 11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held: The orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority upheld – Employer directed to pay gratuity with interest – No interference required by the High Court [Paras 22-23].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Whether Justified – The Family Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband citing cruelty—Wife challenged the decision, arguing that there was no cruelty on her part and that she suffered harassment due to infertility—Held: Medical records and testimony of PW2 (Doctor) confirmed that the wife had a pre-existing seizure disorder, which was suppressed before marriage—Suppression of a serious medical condition affecting marital life constitutes cruelty—Divorce decree upheld [Paras 6-8].

Return of Gold Ornaments – Burden of Proof – Wife claimed that 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to her at the time of marriage and later taken by the husband—Husband denied entrustment and claimed the gold was returned during mediation—Held: In matrimonial cases, once entrustment is proved, the burden shifts to the husband to show how the ornaments were dealt with—Photographic evidence supported wife’s claim—However, considering the possibility of personal retention, deduction of 10 sovereigns allowed—Husband directed to return 91 sovereigns or its market value [Paras 9-12].

Credibility of Evidence – Oral Testimony vs. Documentary Proof – Husband relied on the testimony of PW3 (mediator) to claim that the gold was returned—However, no documentary evidence of mediation or return of ornaments was produced—Held: Mere oral assertions without corroborative proof cannot override primary evidence—Husband’s claim rejected [Paras 10-11].

Final Decision – Wife’s appeal (Mat.Appeal No. 114/2017) dismissed—Divorce decree upheld—Husband’s appeal (Mat.Appeal No. 1254/2016) partly allowed—Husband directed to return 91 sovereigns of gold or its equivalent market value within one month, failing which recovery to be initiated from his assets—No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].
 

Civil – Writ - Religious Institutions – Police Interference – Mandamus Issued – Departmental Inquiry Ordered – Police Directed Not to Interfere in Religious Disputes – The Uttaradi Mutt filed a writ petition alleging that the police coerced them to hand over the keys of Sri Narahariteertha Swamy Brundavana to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt – The petitioner cited prior civil court decrees affirming their possession and alleged that the police acted beyond their jurisdiction – The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had ordered status quo and held that police should not interfere in religious matters unless there is a law and order issue – Held: The police officer exceeded his authority, and a departmental inquiry was ordered against him [Paras 9-14].

Police Powers – Abuse of Authority – Unauthorized Mediation in Civil Disputes – Disciplinary Action Ordered – The police officer convened a “Shanthi Sabhe” meeting and directed the petitioner to hand over possession despite the absence of any judicial directive – The court observed that police interference in purely civil disputes violates established legal principles and State circulars – Held: The police had no jurisdiction to interfere, and a disciplinary inquiry was warranted [Paras 10-14].

Preventive Detention – Section 126 of BNSS (Equivalent to Section 107 Cr.P.C.) – Supreme Court Precedents – Restrictions on Liberty – The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate to emphasize that proceedings under Section 126 of BNSS (formerly Section 107 Cr.P.C.) should not be misused to curtail personal liberty – The court observed that registering proceedings against the petitioner under Section 126 was a clear abuse of power [Para 13].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed in part. The Karnataka High Court directed the Police Commissioner, Dharwad to initiate a departmental inquiry against the third respondent (police officer) and conclude it within four months. The inquiry report must be submitted to the court. The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Karnataka was instructed to ensure compliance [Para 17].
 

Income Tax – Transfer of Case – Section 127 of Income Tax Act – Held: Transfer of petitioner’s case was justified as part of centralization of investigation into M/s. Falcon Marine Pvt. Ltd. and its group – Multiple cases were transferred for coordinated investigation – Transfer order upheld [Paras 7-8, 12-13].

Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement of Hearing – Held: No prejudice caused to the petitioner as the outcome would remain the same even if a hearing was granted – Courts need not insist on compliance with a useless formality – Reference to Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54 [Paras 10-12].

Requirement of Reasons in Transfer Order – Sufficiency of Show Cause Notice – Held: The show cause notice dated 26.10.2023 provided adequate reasons for the transfer, including the need for centralized investigation – Absence of separate detailed reasoning in the final order does not invalidate the transfer [Paras 13-14].

Incriminating Material – Justification for Transfer – Held: Seized documents and financial transactions linking the petitioner with M/s. Falcon Marine Pvt. Ltd. justified the transfer – Reference to Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, (1976) 1 SCC 1001 [Paras 5-6, 9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held: No merit in petitioner’s challenge – Transfer order upheld as valid and justified – No costs imposed [Para 14].
 

Civil Law - Recall of Witness – Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Held: An application for recall of a witness cannot be entertained as a substitute for filling gaps in cross-examination – Recall under Section 151 is permissible only in exceptional circumstances – Application rejected due to delay and lack of justification [Paras 2-4, 20-22].

Filling Lacuna in Cross-Examination – Prohibited – Held: A witness cannot be recalled merely to put questions that were inadvertently missed during prior cross-examination – The petitioner’s attempt to recall PW1 after three years was an attempt to cover gaps, which is impermissible in law [Paras 3-4, 22].

Amendment of Pleadings – Prior Rejection – Res Judicata – Held: The petitioner’s previous attempts to amend the written statement to introduce the issue of lease deed registration had been rejected up to the Supreme Court – The recall application was a backdoor attempt to reintroduce the same issue, barred by principles of res judicata [Paras 12-14, 17].

Effect of Lease Deed Registration – Impact on Suit – Held: The subsequent registration of the lease deed does not automatically impact the suit’s maintainability – The effect of registration is a matter for trial and does not warrant recalling a witness for further cross-examination [Paras 7, 17].

Discretion of Trial Court – Review of Witness Recall – Held: The trial court has wide discretion to allow or reject witness recall applications – In the absence of compelling reasons, the appellate court will not interfere with such discretionary orders [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Revisional Application Dismissed – Held: The trial court’s order rejecting recall of PW1 upheld – No interference required as questions related to registration had already been addressed in cross-examination – Petitioner may present its case during its own evidence stage [Paras 25-27].
 

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide vs. Murder – Whether Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Warranted – The trial court convicted the accused under Section 304-II IPC for causing fatal injuries to the deceased with an axe—State contended that the assault was intentional and warranted conviction under Section 302 IPC—Held: Evidence indicates the accused had knowledge that their act could cause death but lacked intent to kill—Trial court correctly convicted them under Section 304-II IPC—No ground for enhancement to murder [Paras 10-15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability of Relatives as Witnesses – The appellants argued that all prosecution witnesses were relatives of the deceased, making their testimony unreliable—Held: Mere relationship with the victim does not disqualify a witness—Testimonies of PWs 1, 5, and 9 were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence—Conviction upheld [Paras 16-18].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Whether Death Could Have Been Prevented – The doctor (PW13) opined that the injuries, though severe, could have been non-fatal if treated promptly—Held: This does not absolve the accused of liability—Findings of culpable homicide not amounting to murder justified [Paras 19-22].

Final Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Section 304-II IPC upheld—No interference with sentence of five years RI [Paras 23-25].
 

Land Acquisition – Challenge to Section 6 Declaration – Absence of Notification under Section 17(4) – The petitioners challenged the land acquisition process for the Navi Mumbai Project, arguing that no valid notification was issued under Section 17(4) to dispense with the mandatory enquiry under Section 5A – The State failed to produce any notification invoking urgency provisions – Held: The Section 6 declaration and acquisition proceedings are vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 5A, rendering the process illegal—Acquisition quashed [Paras 36-46].

Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act – Right to Be Heard Before Acquisition – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioners contended that they were denied their statutory right to file objections and be heard before the acquisition – The respondents failed to establish that the enquiry under Section 5A was ever conducted – Held: Section 5A embodies the principles of natural justice and cannot be arbitrarily dispensed with—Failure to comply with this provision invalidates the entire acquisition [Paras 37-40].

Urgency Provisions – Section 17(4) – Whether Rightly Invoked – The State argued that urgency provisions under Section 17(4) were applicable, justifying the omission of the enquiry under Section 5A – However, no documentary evidence of such invocation was produced – Held: The invocation of urgency must be based on demonstrable urgency that cannot brook delay—In the absence of proper notification, the acquisition proceedings are illegal and liable to be struck down [Paras 41-44].

Mootness of Delay & Laches – Whether Petitioners Had Acquiesced – The respondents contended that the petitioners delayed filing the writ petition, indicating acquiescence – Held: Mere passage of time does not cure a jurisdictional defect—Where an acquisition is vitiated by non-compliance with statutory provisions, delay is not a bar to relief—Petitioners entitled to challenge the acquisition despite the lapse of time [Paras 45-48].

Compensation & Rehabilitation – Applicability of 2013 Act – The State argued that compensation had been determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Held: Compensation under the 2013 Act does not cure a fundamentally flawed acquisition process—Landowners’ right to challenge illegal acquisition remains intact [Paras 49-52].

Final Decision – The writ petitions are allowed – The Section 6 declaration and entire acquisition process are quashed – The State directed to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards if fresh acquisition is initiated [Paras 53-56].