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].

Employment Law - Home Guards Recruitment – Prior Approval Under Section 3 of HG Act – Not Required for Selection – Approval Needed Only at Appointment Stage – Writ Allowed - Petitioner challenged refusal by Commandant-General to accord approval to selection list on the ground that prior approval was not obtained – Held: Section 3 of the Odisha Home Guards Act requires approval only for appointment, not for initiating selection process – Board’s selection process without prior approval not irregular – Rejection of approval based on misinterpretation of law – Direction issued to consider approval afresh [Paras 9–13].

Statutory Interpretation – "Subject to" and "Approval" – Distinction Between Approval and Permission – Approval May Be Post-facto - Court held that “approval” under Section 3 is not synonymous with “permission” – Prior approval is not mandated unless expressly stated – Circular requiring prior approval is not statutory and cannot override the Act – Selection list is valid pending post-facto approval [Paras 10–11].

Administrative Instructions vs Statute – Circular Cannot Override Statute – Selection Not Void - Circular dated 03.07.2014 requiring prior approval before appointment cannot be read into the statute where the law only requires approval at appointment stage – Rejection of entire selection on this basis is unjustified – Authority cannot assume appellate role in rejecting selection process [Paras 11.3–13.4].

Doctrine of Ratification – Approval Can Be Granted Post-facto – Action Not Invalid for Lack of Initial Sanction - Approval includes ratification of existing acts – Where appointment is yet to be made, Commandant-General can validly accord approval retrospectively – Held: No illegality in seeking approval after selection process concludes [Paras 11.4–13.4].

Writ – Decision Quashed – Direction for Reconsideration - Refusal to grant approval quashed – Matter remitted back to Commandant-General to re-examine approval request in accordance with law [Para 13.5].
 

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].

Criminal Law - Public Way – Unlawful Construction – Section 133 CrPC – Order for Removal Upheld - Petitioners challenged orders directing demolition of a wall built on public land used as a pathway – Held: Wall obstructed traditional public way; even partial obstruction warrants removal under Section 133 CrPC – Construction found unjustified and detrimental to public use [Paras 6–11, 17].

Presumption of Future Obstruction – Not Sole Basis – Existing Encroachment Confirmed - Petitioners argued that action was based on future apprehension – Court held evidence on record confirmed actual obstruction and misuse of public land, not just presumption [Paras 3, 11].

Right to Pathway – Community Use Prevails Over Individual Claims - Based on field reports and witness testimony, Court held that path was used by villagers and obstructed by the wall – Reiterated duty to preserve Gram Sabha land for communal purposes [Paras 6–10, 14].

Gram Sabha Land – Encroachment Not to Be Regularized – Directions from Supreme Court Cited - Court followed precedent in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2011 SC 1123 – Held: Public land cannot be regularized if encroached, even if construction exists – Public interest and village usage must be preserved [Paras 14–15].

Maintainability of Orders – Proper Procedure Followed – No Illegality Found - Both the SDM and Revisional Court orders held valid – Findings based on evidence, field inquiry, and due procedure under Section 133 and related CrPC provisions – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 12–13, 17–18].
 

Civil Law - Procedure – Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC – Right to Begin – Plaintiff Entitled to Lead Evidence – Deviation Not Justified – The appellant challenged the direction of the learned Single Judge requiring him (defendant) to lead evidence first in a partition suit – The High Court held that as per Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC, it is the plaintiff who has the right to begin unless the defendant admits all material facts and raises only legal defences or additional facts – No such admission was made by the appellant – Held: The impugned order directing the defendant to begin was contrary to procedural law and thus set aside [Paras 15-23]. 
 
Burden of Proof – Direction to Defendant to Lead Evidence – Improper Allocation – No Admission by Defendant – The trial court placed initial burden on defendant based on disputed documents allegedly in his exclusive knowledge – The appellate court held that absence of admissions by the defendant made it incorrect to call him first to lead evidence – The responsibility lies with the plaintiffs to prove their case in the first instance [Paras 16-18, 21-22]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – The direction requiring the appellant to lead evidence first was quashed – The respondents/plaintiffs were directed to lead their evidence in accordance with law [Para 23]. 
 

Tenancy Law - Tenancy Claim – Cultivation by Relative – Tenancy Denied – MRT Order Set Aside - Petitioner challenged the MRT’s order which upheld tenancy rights of Uttamrao Khot – Held: Mere cultivation by a relative or adopted family member does not establish tenancy – No rent receipts or tenancy agreement were produced – Respondent's claim fails under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act [Paras 13–33].
Presumption of Cultivation – Blank Cultivator Column – Not Sufficient to Prove Tenancy - MRT and Tahsildar relied on blank entries in cultivation columns and assumed tenancy – Court held that such blanks do not raise presumption of tenant cultivation, especially when name of landlord appears in later years – Burden to prove tenancy lies on claimant [Paras 19–20, 25].
Documentary Evidence – Sugarcane Receipts and Revenue Payments – Found Insufficient - Respondent relied on sugarcane factory receipts and land revenue payment documents – Court found no conclusive link to tenancy, especially since payments may have been made as a relative – Letter dated 3 August 1976 allegedly proving rent payment was interpolated and lacked authenticity [Paras 24–30].
Family Relationship – Deemed Tenant Status Barred – Section 4(1)(a) Attracted - Respondent was proved to be brother of the original landowner, adopted by her mother – Held: A family member cannot claim deemed tenancy under Section 4 – Claim fails on statutory bar alone [Para 33].
Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – MRT and Tahsildar Orders Quashed - High Court held that MRT’s conclusions were perverse, findings unsupported by credible evidence – Restored SDO's decision rejecting tenancy claim – Respondents’ tenancy over Gat No.836 (New Gat No.125) not upheld [Paras 16–33].
 

Criminal Law – Sect. 138 N.I. Act - Bail Cancellation – Non-Appearance Due to Health – Bail Restored – Petitioner’s bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants issued for non-appearance in a Section 138 NI Act case – Held: Absence was unintentional, caused by medically proven encephalopathy – Trial Court’s action in issuing arrest warrant without notice was harsh and disproportionate – Bail cancellation order quashed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Judicial Discretion – Due Process Violated – No Prior Notice Before Warrant – Petitioner not issued notice before issuance of non-bailable warrant – Held: Contrary to settled law and judicial fairness – Courts must avoid mechanical detention and ensure liberty is not curtailed without procedural safeguards [Paras 5, 6].

Legal Principles – Liberty & Bail – Ref. Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Sanjay Chandra – Cited – Court reiterated that deprivation of liberty must be based on necessity, not mere procedural lapse – Held: Petitioner’s conduct showed cooperation, no risk of tampering with evidence – Bail is to secure appearance, not punishment [Paras 5.1, 5.2, 6].

Final Directions – Bail Restored with Conditions – Impugned order of 11.10.2024 set aside – Petitioner directed to appear before trial Court on 09.06.2025 and all subsequent dates – Passport to be surrendered if any – Rs.10,000 costs imposed payable to Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association [Para 8].
 

PMLA Offence – Bail Rejection – Serious Economic Fraud – Bail Denied – Petitioner accused of defrauding over ₹800 crores from flat buyers through a fictitious housing project – Despite attachment of ₹161.5 crores, further investigation ongoing to trace remaining proceeds of crime – Held: Given gravity, conduct of petitioner, and ongoing investigation, bail cannot be granted [Paras 5–6, 15, 24–25].

Statutory Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Not Applicable – Complaint Filed Timely – Petitioner argued for statutory bail due to delayed filing of final report – Held: Complaint under PMLA filed on 05.11.2024 and taken cognizance on 04.12.2024, within permissible time – Hence, plea for statutory bail rejected [Paras 4.2, 8, 11].

Section 45 PMLA – Stringent Bail Conditions – Not Satisfied – Petitioner Failed Two-Part Test – Court found no reasonable grounds to believe petitioner is not guilty or unlikely to commit offence again – Held: Petitioner failed conditions under Section 45(1)(ii), bail barred [Paras 17–18, 25].

Non-Cooperation and Tampering – Forged Medical Certificate and Illegal Mobile Use – Misuse During Custody – Petitioner submitted forged medical documents and possessed mobile phone in judicial custody – Alleged further laundering through daughter-in-law while in jail – Held: Conduct undermines claim of bona fides and justifies continued custody [Paras 5.2, 5.5, 14, 21].

Further Investigation Post-Complaint – Permissible Under PMLA – Complaint Not Bar to Continued Probe – Held: Under Section 44(1)(ii) PMLA, complaint can be supplemented by further investigation – Justifies refusal of bail due to ongoing tracing of unaccounted proceeds of crime [Paras 23–24].

Final Decision – Bail Denied – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Taking into account the magnitude of the offence, petitioner’s conduct, and non-cooperation, Court held bail unjustified – Petition dismissed [Para 26].
 

Criminal Law - Rape and Abduction – Appeal Against Conviction - Credibility of Victim – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted under Sections 342, 366, and 376(1) IPC for unlawfully restraining, abducting, and raping an 18-year-old – The High Court found the victim’s testimony cogent, consistent, and supported by medical evidence and corroborative testimony – Delay in FIR filing was reasonably explained and held not fatal – Minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony did not affect overall credibility – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 2, 4–8].
Use of Section 161/164 CrPC Statements – Contradiction Procedures – Defence Argument Rejected – The Court emphasized that Section 161 and 164 CrPC statements are not substantive evidence unless properly confronted during cross-examination under Section 145 Evidence Act – Defence failed to comply with these procedural requirements – Hence, no valid contradiction established [Paras 5, 7(i)–(viii)].
Enhancement of Sentence – Section 376(2)(b) and (c) IPC – Government Servant Claim Unsubstantiated – Appeal Dismissed – State’s claim that the accused was a government servant and should be convicted under Section 376(2)(b)/(c) IPC rejected – No documentary evidence, ID, or official record produced to establish his employment – Custody element under Section 376(2)(b) not satisfied – Belated attempt to alter charges held impermissible – Appeal for enhancement dismissed [Paras 3, 9–13].