Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Against Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) – Availability of Statutory Remedies – The petitioner filed a writ petition against the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the expiration of the 30-day statutory period for raising objections before the Adjudicating Authority – Held: The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, which provide adequate safeguards and opportunities to challenge the attachment – Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to approach the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 1.1, 3.1, 3.6].

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA – Judicial Review – The petitioner’s challenge to the PAO, asserting a lack of connection with the proceeds of crime, was found unsustainable – The PAO is subject to review and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days as per Section 5(5) of the PMLA – The court found that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasize procedural safeguards provided under the Act [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedies – When Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked – The petitioner failed to establish that the PAO was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or amounted to an abuse of process, which are the grounds for bypassing statutory remedies – Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the limited exceptions to the rule of exhausting remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 3.2, 3.6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedy by approaching the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA – No observation on the merits of the case made – The Adjudicating Authority is directed to expedite the matter [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Permissive Possession – Adverse Possession Claim Rejected – Appeal Allowed – The plaintiff-appellant sought possession of land transferred under an agreement to sell, which was subsequently cancelled. The respondent-defendant claimed adverse possession, citing long-standing occupancy post-termination. Held: Possession acquired through an agreement to sell is inherently permissive; adverse possession cannot arise until the vendee repudiates this permission and establishes hostile ownership. Asserting adverse possession while retaining rights under the agreement is contradictory and invalidates the adverse possession claim [Paras 22-25, 28].

Doctrine of Part Performance and Adverse Possession – Incompatibility – The Court emphasized that a vendee in possession under an agreement to sell cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession and part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Following Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, the Court ruled that permissive possession through an agreement precludes hostile possession until explicit repudiation of the agreement occurs [Paras 24-26].

Limitations and Permissive Possession – Applicability of Article 65 – The Court applied Article 65 of the Limitation Act, noting that limitation starts from dispossession or overt hostility. Here, no proof of adverse conduct was shown, as the defendant's possession stemmed from the agreement's permissive basis, which remains until formal revocation [Paras 21, 23].

Restitution Under Void Contract – Section 65, Indian Contract Act – The Court held that a contract rendered void necessitates restitution. Since the agreement failed, the defendant must restore possession to the plaintiffs per Section 65. The principle of restitution applies where the defendant seeks to benefit from a void contract without fulfilling its terms [Para 30].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts. The suit for possession is decreed, with instructions that the defendant vacate the property, as adverse possession is unsubstantiated. The principle of restitution under void contracts mandates possession reversion to the plaintiffs.

Service Law - Succession Certificate – Legal Heirship – Section 372 of Indian Succession Act – Second Marriage Void – Succession Certificate Granted to First Wife – The applicant, the second wife, contested the succession certificate granted to the respondent, the first wife, regarding the movable properties and family pension of the deceased Gangadhar. The courts below found the second marriage void as it was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage. The court upheld the finding that the respondent is the sole legal heir entitled to the family pension [Paras 1-4, 16-22].

Pension Nomination – Rule 116 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules – Nomination Does Not Confer Legal Heir Status – The applicant claimed entitlement to the pension based on her nomination by the deceased husband. However, the court held that the nomination does not override legal heirship rights and cannot confer a legal status of a wife, especially when the second marriage is void under Hindu law. The court rejected the argument for equal division of the pension between both widows [Paras 10, 21-22].

Equitable Relief – Family Pension for 10 Years Already Received by Second Wife – No Further Pension Entitlement – The applicant had been receiving the family pension for 10 years to the exclusion of the respondent. The court ruled that the second wife, having received benefits unlawfully, was not entitled to further pension and directed the immediate release of the family pension to the first wife with arrears [Paras 30-33, 38-40].

Decision: Civil Revision Application Dismissed – The court upheld the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, confirming the first wife's status as the sole legal heir entitled to receive the family pension [Paras 34-41].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Appellant sought anticipatory bail in connection with allegations under Sections 368, 369, and 370 IPC regarding the abduction and trafficking of minors – Appellant contended that the children were voluntarily handed over to him through a Panchayat decision with formal adoption procedures – Held: The court found that the adoption was done with the consent of the complainant and no prima facie evidence supported the allegations of abduction or trafficking [Paras 14-17].

Delay in Filing Complaint – The court noted a delay of two years in filing the complaint, raising doubts about the genuineness of the allegations – The delay was linked to a potential dispute over the complainant’s intent to sell his late son's property [Paras 19-21].

Adoption Process – The adoption of the complainant’s grandson by the appellant, although not fully compliant with legal formalities, was agreed upon during a Panchayat meeting and witnessed by others, including the complainant himself – The court ruled that this did not constitute criminal intent under Sections 368, 369, or 370 IPC [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The court set aside the order rejecting bail, directing the appellant to surrender and be released on bail with sureties – There was insufficient evidence to justify charges under Sections 368, 369, and 370 IPC [Paras 25-28].

Service Law – Termination of Teachers – Petitioners, employed as teachers in various government schools, were terminated after their educational certificates, particularly B.Ed. degrees, were found to be forged – Petitioners challenged the termination, alleging procedural lapses in the inquiry – Court held that the use of forged certificates for securing public employment amounts to fraud, and such appointments are void ab initio – Protection under Article 311 of the Constitution cannot be claimed in cases of fraudulent appointments [Paras 13-16, 27-31].

Fraudulent Appointments – Ineligibility for Protection – The court held that persons who secured public employment through fraud are not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution – Petitioners failed to prove the authenticity of their B.Ed. degrees, and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act mandates that unqualified persons cannot be appointed as teachers [Paras 21-24, 36-38].

Procedural Safeguards – Departmental Inquiry – Petitioners argued that they were not given a fair chance to defend themselves, and the inquiry process was flawed – Court ruled that even though procedural lapses were alleged, the fact that the petitioners lacked the necessary qualifications for appointment rendered the inquiry irrelevant – Fraud vitiates all actions, and procedural safeguards cannot rescue an appointment secured through deception [Paras 28-33, 42].

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Termination orders upheld as valid – Petitioners, having used forged documents for securing employment, were not entitled to any relief – The appointments were void ab initio, and the challenge to their termination failed [Paras 43-45].

Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance with Court Order – The appellant was held in contempt for failing to pay the revised rent of ₹2 per sq. foot as directed by the court – Appellant argued that the payment of rent was delayed due to ongoing negotiations over municipal tax dues owed by the Satram, which was to be offset against the rent – Court held that while public funds must be conserved, the adjustment of municipal tax dues cannot indefinitely delay compliance with court orders – Conviction under Contempt of Courts Act set aside as there was no deliberate disobedience, and appellant’s conduct was not willfully contemptuous [Paras 10-12, 16-18].

Typographical Error in Court Order – The court clarified that the amendment to calculate rent at ₹2 per sq. foot instead of ₹2 per sq. yard was a correction of a typographical error, which the appellant was required to comply with [Paras 5-7].

Municipal Tax Adjustment – The court acknowledged that the Municipal Corporation's attempt to adjust rent against Satram's tax dues was reasonable, but this did not justify the delay in payment – Directed that if the rent is not adjusted against tax dues within six weeks, the rent should be paid in cash [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction for contempt set aside – Court directed resolution of the rent and tax adjustment issue within six weeks, failing which the rent should be paid in cash to Satram [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Applicants sought quashing of FIR under Sections 498, 323, 504, 506, 509 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations included demand for dowry, cruelty, and unnatural sexual behavior – Court found that the FIR contained vague and general allegations without specific incidents of dowry demand or cruelty – Held: General and vague allegations cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution – FIR quashed as it was a concocted story lacking specific details [Paras 7, 10, 15].

Matters of Matrimonial Dispute – Dowry and Cruelty Allegations – Allegations involved matrimonial disputes and sexual incompatibility – The court observed that mere inclusion of family members in matrimonial disputes without specific instances of wrongdoing is an abuse of process – FIR lodged by the wife’s family was found to be an attempt to escalate a personal dispute to a criminal level [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Application of Precedents – Misuse of Section 498-A IPC – The court relied on precedents such as Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, emphasizing that general and omnibus allegations against in-laws in matrimonial disputes must not be encouraged – Prosecution based on such vague claims amounts to harassment and an abuse of the legal process [Paras 12, 13, 14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Cognizance and summoning orders, charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings quashed – The court held that continuing the case would be a malicious prosecution and an abuse of legal process [Paras 10, 15].

Arbitral Proceedings – Judicial Interference – Scope of Article 227 – The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution in arbitral matters. Interference is permissible only in cases of "exceptional rarity," "exceptional circumstances," or "extreme perversity." Here, the petition challenged an interlocutory arbitral order allowing interrogatories and discovery of documents – Held: The court found no exceptional circumstance justifying interference [Paras 7, 44].

Interrogatories – Relevance to Arbitral Dispute – The arbitral tribunal had allowed interrogatories related to unsold plots within a project. The petitioner argued these were beyond the terms of the contract. The court rejected this, holding that the interrogatories were relevant to the subject matter of the dispute and necessary for fair adjudication – Held: The interrogatories were properly allowed [Paras 22-26, 34-37].

Discovery of Documents – Arbitration – Limited Scope of Challenge – The petitioner argued that the discovery of certain documents exceeded the terms of the agreement. The court, however, upheld the arbitral tribunal's direction for production of documents, stating that such evidence was crucial to resolving the dispute about the availability of plots – Held: The order for document production was valid [Paras 24-25, 39].

Specific Performance – Frustration of Contract – Alternate Reliefs – The seller (petitioner) contended that the agreements were frustrated due to non-acquisition of land by the government. The buyer (respondent) sought specific performance or alternate relief of similarly situated plots. The court noted that the arbitral tribunal was competent to consider these issues and the tribunal’s interlocutory orders did not overreach its jurisdiction – Held: No jurisdictional error by the arbitrator [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Petitions Dismissed – The court found no merit in the petitioner’s challenge under Article 227 and dismissed the petitions [Paras 45-46].

Service Law - Age Relaxation – Experience as Anganwadi Worker – Validity of Certificates – The respondent, having applied for the post of Supervisor Grade-II (Female), claimed age relaxation based on her experience as an Anganwadi Worker – Her candidature was rejected by DSSSB on the ground of over-age due to conflicting certificates of experience – The Tribunal held that the certificates were valid, as the respondent had worked for both the Department of Women and Child Development and an NGO simultaneously – Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the rejection of her candidature was arbitrary and directed verification of the certificates [Paras 2-4].

Concurrent Employment – No Conflict in Experience – The Court accepted that the respondent’s employment as an Anganwadi Worker did not preclude her from working part-time with an NGO – This concurrent employment did not invalidate her experience as an Anganwadi Worker for the purpose of age relaxation [Para 6].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The Tribunal’s order directing the petitioners to verify the respondent’s Anganwadi Worker certificate and to offer her appointment if found valid was upheld – No interference warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [Paras 8-10].