Education Law – D.El.Ed. Eligibility – Government Order – Judicial Review – Prospective Quashing of G.O. – Restored – Learned Single Judge quashed Clause 4(1) of the Government Order dated 09.09.2024 prescribing graduation as minimum eligibility for D.El.Ed. course – Held: State Government empowered under Clause 3.3 of NCTE Regulations, 2014 to frame policy on admissions – Graduation-based eligibility prescribed consistently since 1998 – Not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 – Quashing order unsustainable [Paras 1, 6, 19, 20, 25–27, 32–34]

Training – Interpretation of Rules – Rule 2(q) of 1981 Rules – Eligibility for Training Must Be Read with Graduation Requirement – Challenge Not Raised – “Training” under Rule 2(q) means courses for which only graduates are eligible – Respondents did not challenge Rule 2(q) – Hence, State justified in aligning D.El.Ed. admission eligibility with Service Rules for teacher appointments [Paras 25–27]

NCTE Regulations vs State Policy – Harmonious Construction – State May Prescribe Higher Qualification – NCTE Regulations prescribe higher secondary as minimum eligibility but allow State policies to determine admission process – Held: NCTE norms are minimum standards – State may prescribe higher qualifications, provided they are not lower than NCTE's – Policy prescription of graduation not ultra vires [Paras 17–19, 25]

Administrative Law – Procedural Fairness – Amendment Application Allowed – Decision Rendered Without Granting Time to Respond – State was not granted opportunity to file a counter to amended writ petition – Judgment passed within a week of amendment – Held: Denial of fair opportunity to defend Government Order also vitiates findings of learned Single Judge [Paras 10, 32]

Comparative Courses – D.El.Ed. vs D.El.Ed. (Special Education) – Flawed Equivalence – No material to show DIETs conduct D.El.Ed. (Special Education) – Learned Single Judge’s reliance on this distinction misplaced – Conclusion on arbitrariness based on false parity discarded [Paras 7, 11, 32]

Delay Condonation – Special Appeal – Procedural Delays Explained – No Objection by Respondents – Delay Condoned – 50-day delay explained through inter-departmental approvals – Not opposed by respondents – Delay in filing appeal condoned [Paras 1–3]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 24528 of 2024 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Clause 4(1) of Government Order dated 09.09.2024 upheld as constitutionally valid.

Labour Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – MRTU & PULP Act – Situs of Employment – Cause of Action – Head Office as Nerve Centre – GlaxoSmithKline Impliedly Overruled – The Division Bench of this Court in GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. held that the situs of the employee’s employment alone governs territorial jurisdiction – Held: This view stands impliedly overruled by the later Supreme Court decisions in Nandram v. Garware Polyester Ltd. and Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd. – The cause of action also arises where the head or corporate office took the impugned decision, issued appointment, transfer or termination orders, or paid salary – The situs test alone cannot determine jurisdiction – both the situs and the place of managerial decision are relevant [Paras 90–107, 111–112, 147].

Doctrine of Implied Overruling – Effect of Later Supreme Court Decision – A later, inconsistent Supreme Court decision operates as an implied overruling of an earlier High Court ruling – Following S.E. Graphites Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana and C.N. Rudramurthy v. K. Barkhatullah Khan – The decision in GlaxoSmithKline is inconsistent with Nandram and Rakesh Kumar Verma and is therefore impliedly overruled [Paras 83–91].

Industrial Adjudication – Applicability of CPC Principles – Territorial Jurisdiction – Although the Code of Civil Procedure is not directly applicable to labour adjudication, its principles concerning accrual of cause of action and concurrent jurisdiction are relevant – Section 20 CPC can guide determination of jurisdiction where part of the cause arises – Industrial disputes may give rise to concurrent jurisdiction in more than one State [Paras 108–136].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Cause of Action Arising at Multiple Places – When part of the cause of action arises within Maharashtra (where the head or corporate office is located) and part outside (where the employee is posted), both courts have jurisdiction – No extra-territorial application of the MRTU Act arises in such cases [Paras 106–109, 130].

Precedents – Interpretation of Earlier Rulings – Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. – The decision is not an authority for the proposition that jurisdiction lies only at the employee’s situs – Read harmoniously with Laxman Baburao Repal v. Poona Labour Court and Workmen v. Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. to mean that the place where the dispute substantially arises, including the head office, may confer jurisdiction [Paras 117–122].

Judicial Discipline – Article 141 – Binding Nature of Supreme Court’s Law – High Courts are bound by Supreme Court pronouncements – If inconsistency exists, the High Court’s earlier contrary view stands impliedly overruled even if not expressly mentioned [Paras 88–89].

Waiver of Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 21 CPC – Objections as to territorial jurisdiction are technical and must be raised at the earliest stage; otherwise, they are deemed waived – Belated objections after prolonged proceedings are unsustainable without proof of prejudice [Paras 159–160, 205].

Labour Litigation – Delay and Prejudice – Employees were denied adjudication on merits for over 15 years due to technical objections on jurisdiction – Court deprecated such tactics and directed expeditious disposal within one year in each remanded case [Paras 158–160, 213].

Remand and Relief – Orders dismissing complaints for want of jurisdiction under GlaxoSmithKline set aside – Complaints restored for decision on merits – Employers directed to pay costs ranging from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- to the employees/unions [Paras 170–213].

Decision – GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Labour Court, Mumbai and decisions following it held impliedly overruled – Labour and Industrial Courts within Maharashtra have jurisdiction where part of the cause arises due to managerial decisions at head office – Appeals and writ petitions allowed; complaints restored; costs imposed; direction for decision within one year [Paras 161–214].

Stamp Act – Impounding of Unstamped Documents – Trial Court's Refusal Set Aside – Petitioners produced original documents pursuant to Trial Court’s earlier order dated 29.03.2011 below Exh.116 – Application to send such documents to the Collector under Stamp Act was rejected citing delay – Held: No time limit was prescribed for submission – Once original documents are filed, Court is bound to impound them and send to Collector for adjudication under Sections 33, 34, and 37 of the Gujarat Stamp Act – Rejection of the application was contrary to statutory duty and earlier judicial direction [Paras 9.3, 10-14].

Delay – No Bar to Statutory Obligation – Trial Court refused to refer document due to nine-year delay after original direction – Held: No timeline fixed in earlier order – Delay irrelevant where law mandates impounding and referral of unstamped document – Such obligation is independent and automatic upon production of document [Paras 9.5, 11, 13].

Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Rejection of application held perverse and contrary to the Court’s own order and law – Gross irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction by Trial Court – High Court interferes under Article 227 to correct error and ensure compliance with mandatory statutory provisions [Paras 13-14, 17].

Relief – Impugned order quashed – Trial Court directed to send original document (Mark 205/1) to Collector – Collector to assess stamp deficiency and penalty, after due hearing – If duty is paid, document to be returned and considered for exhibit by Trial Court in accordance with law [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 13/09/2022 rejecting Exhibit-209 application is quashed – Trial Court directed to send original document to Stamp Duty Inspector/Collector for further action – Collector to conduct inquiry and return document after adjudication – Trial Court to decide on exhibiting the document post compliance – Rule made absolute – No costs [Paras 15-17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC for allegedly murdering his wife by strangulation with a saree and shifting the body to another village – Trial Court relied on Ex.P2 (alleged note by deceased), medical opinion and recovery of saree pieces – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Death occurred in matrimonial home but no direct evidence linking accused – Circumstances insufficient to convict [Paras 12, 17, 22, 41]

Evidence Law – Expert Opinion – Dying Declaration – Handwriting of deceased in Ex.P2 (notebook) opined by expert to be genuine – However, discrepancies in name, date, and content – No corroboration from surrounding facts – Held: Opinion of handwriting expert is weak evidence and cannot solely form basis of conviction – Ex.P2 not reliable or admissible as dying declaration – Not put to accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination – Cannot be used against him [Paras 19, 30-33]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden on Accused – Accused’s explanation of bleeding and shifting to hospital found false – But held: Mere false explanation not sufficient – Failure to explain under Section 106 is an additional link, not a substitute for complete chain of evidence – Prosecution must first establish prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18, 22, 25]

Criminal Trial – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Use of Accused's Statement – Accused’s responses under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence – Circumstances not properly put to accused – Held: Violation of procedural safeguards – Statements under Section 313 must be specific and complete – Incriminating material not placed for explanation – Ex.P2 not referred – Violates right to fair defence [Paras 26-27, 33]

Motive – Absence of Proof – Alleged motive of accused wanting to marry another woman not substantiated – No independent witness to cruelty – Family members' testimony lacked corroboration – Held: Motive not proved – In case of circumstantial evidence, motive is key – Its absence weighs in favour of accused [Paras 13, 36-40]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Fine amount to be refunded – Accused already on bail directed to complete legal formalities [Paras 42-43]

Prevention of Money Laundering – Provisional Attachment – Jurisdiction of ED – Existence of Scheduled Offence – ED’s provisional attachment of Rs. 122.74 crores challenged on ground that allotment of preferential shares and related proceeds not mentioned in FIR or ECIR – High Court held that once scheduled offence (under IPC Sections 420, 120B) is registered and chargesheet filed, ED's jurisdiction under Section 5 PMLA is valid – PAO held to be within powers of ED [Paras 36–38, 45].

Money Laundering – Scope of ‘Proceeds of Crime’ – Indirect Derivation – Preferential share sale proceeds traced to misrepresentation before Ministry of Coal and BSE – Court held that under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA, property indirectly obtained via scheduled offence is also 'proceeds of crime' – Appreciation in share price due to false public declaration before BSE is directly linked to predicate offence – Gains from sale held liable to attachment [Paras 35, 39–41, 44].

Attachment under PMLA – Not Dependent on Prior Action under Section 66(2) – Learned Single Judge erred in holding that ED’s failure to inform jurisdictional police under Section 66(2) PMLA vitiated the PAO – Division Bench held Section 66(2) is directory, not mandatory – ED’s powers under Section 5 are independent and preventive in nature – Delay or omission under Section 66(2) does not invalidate attachment [Paras 48–55].

Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 – Alternative Remedy Available – Single Judge exercised writ jurisdiction to quash PAO despite existence of statutory remedy under Sections 8, 26, 42 of PMLA – Division Bench held such interference inappropriate – Petition involved disputed facts, and attachment was still under adjudication – Writ petition not maintainable under principles in Whirlpool v. Registrar of Trademarks [Paras 19–29].

Continuing Offence – Money Laundering as an Independent Crime – Court held that offence under Section 3 of PMLA is not contingent on trial outcome in predicate offence – Money laundering continues as long as accused possesses, uses, or enjoys tainted property – Misrepresentation, share allotment, and profits formed part of a chain of connected acts [Paras 43–45, 49–50].

Constitutional Protection – Article 20(1) – Not Violated – Respondent’s argument that scheduled offences were added to PMLA only after the alleged acts (2007–08) was rejected – Court held money laundering is a continuing offence – Application of PMLA to ongoing possession of proceeds post-2009 not barred by Article 20(1) [Para 50].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge quashing Provisional Attachment Order set aside – Attachment of property under Section 5 PMLA restored – Observations limited to adjudication of the present appeals and shall not affect ongoing or future proceedings [Paras 56–59].

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Withdrawal Without Notice – Maintainability of Writ – Plaintiffs withdrew partition suit unconditionally and ex parte through Lok Adalat – Co-sharers (Defendant Nos. 20 and 21) not notified or served with application or purshish – Held: Withdrawal of partition suit without hearing all co-sharers, particularly those supporting the claim and seeking transposition, violates principles of natural justice – Mandatory requirement under Section 20 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, for notice prior to Lok Adalat reference not followed – Writ under Article 227 maintainable to challenge award passed without jurisdiction or in breach of procedure [Paras 8–21, 25–28].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction and Procedure – Trial Court referred matter to Lok Adalat suo motu based on unilateral application by plaintiffs – No hearing or notice to petitioners – Held: Reference to Lok Adalat not valid in absence of opportunity to opposing parties – Order/decree passed in Lok Adalat set aside for procedural illegality and breach of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act [Paras 12–20, 27–28].

Transposition of Parties – Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC – Right of Co-defendant to Continue Proceedings – Petitioners, having identical interest in ancestral properties and not opposing the suit, had right to seek transposition upon withdrawal – Trial Court’s order denying such opportunity violated procedure and equity – Petitioners allowed to seek transposition upon restoration of suit [Paras 4.6, 25, 28(v)].

Constitution – Article 227 – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to Lok Adalat award maintainable under Article 227 alone – Supreme Court rulings clarify writ under Article 226 or 227 is remedy against Lok Adalat award on limited grounds including violation of natural justice – Objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Writ allowed – Impugned order dated 03/08/2019 passed by Trial Court in Lok Adalat quashed – Special Civil Suit No. 158 of 2016 restored to original file – Petitioners (Defendant Nos. 20 and 21) permitted to object to withdrawal and seek transposition under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC – Trial Court to decide all issues afresh – All legal contentions left open for determination.

SARFAESI Act – Delay in Filing Securitisation Applications – Limitation Act Applicability – Section 17 Proceedings Are Original in Nature – DRT Has Jurisdiction to Condon Delay – Borrowers filed writ petitions challenging DRT orders rejecting their SAs for delay beyond 45 days – Petitioners argued that the DRT erred in holding that it lacked power to condone delay – Held: There is no express exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act in SARFAESI – Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies – Provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 apply to applications under Section 17 – DRT is a judicial forum and proceedings under Section 17 are original in nature – Borrowers cannot be non-suited merely on technical delay [Paras A-24, A-28, C-1, C-2]

SARFAESI and RDB Acts – Harmonious Construction – DRT Jurisdiction – Both Acts Complementary – Borrowers’ Right to Fair Adjudication Requires Delay Condonation Where Justified – Courts emphasized that the SARFAESI and RDB Acts operate in the same field and DRT has overlapping jurisdiction – When banks/financial institutions can seek benefit of Limitation Act under RDB Act, same cannot be denied to borrowers under SARFAESI – Tribunal cannot mechanically reject SAs without examining grounds for delay [Paras A-17 to A-21, A-30]

Interpretation of Special Laws – Section 29(2) of Limitation Act – No Express Exclusion in SARFAESI – Hence, Sections 4 to 24 Apply – Court held that in absence of express exclusion, general limitation provisions remain applicable – Provisions of Limitation Act to be read as supplementing SARFAESI – DRT can condone delay based on judicial discretion [Paras A-23, A-24, A-45]

COVID-19 Pandemic and Practical Difficulties – Consideration of Bonafide Delay Grounds – Technical View Not Justified – Court observed that borrowers often explore loan settlement or OTS schemes, during which time limitation may expire – Physical absence of DRT at local seats and pandemic-related disruptions further justified delay – Such factors must be considered while applying limitation principles [Paras A-31, P-7 to P-9]

Precedents Followed – Apex Court Rulings in Transcore, Mardia Chemicals, Consolidated Engineering, Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal, M.P. Steel Corporation – High Court in Fair Style Embroidery Works – All Support Applicability of Limitation Act to SARFAESI Proceedings – Ratio of Supreme Court judgments confirms that Limitation Act applies to original proceedings before Tribunals unless expressly excluded – Section 5 applicable for condonation of delay, and Section 14 for exclusion of time due to bona fide proceedings [Paras A-32 to A-36, A-41, A-42]

Decision: Miscellaneous Petition No. 6432 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 4104 of 2023 allowed – Impugned DRT orders set aside – Matters remanded to DRT for deciding Section 5 Limitation Act applications afresh – Review Petition No. 453 of 2024 dismissed [Para C-3]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Securities Market Fraud – Consent Order by SEBI – Not a Bar – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR alleging conspiracy in IPO scam through fraudulent demat accounts to corner retail investor quota – Alleged offences under IPC include cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust – Petitioners contended SEBI's consent order settling regulatory proceedings precluded criminal prosecution – Held: Consent order under SEBI Act does not obliterate criminal liability – Fraud committed is a public wrong affecting financial markets and investor trust – Quashing refused [Paras 24–30, 38–39].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Allegations of systemic fraud, forgery, and conspiracy warrant full trial – Court should not exercise power under Section 482 to stifle legitimate prosecution in serious economic offences – Quashing can only be considered where complaint is manifestly absurd or mala fide – Present case involves triable issues requiring evidence – Held: No case for interference under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 31–37].

Securities Law – SEBI Consent Mechanism – No Immunity from Criminal Prosecution – Consent orders under SEBI Act are regulatory settlements – They do not amount to acquittal or exoneration from criminal liability – Where the alleged act constitutes both regulatory violation and criminal offence, both remedies can proceed independently – SEBI’s action does not curtail the State’s power to prosecute [Paras 24–30].

Market Integrity – IPO Manipulation – Alleged offence involves fraudulent opening of 14,000 demat accounts with fictitious identities – Syndicate cornered retail quota and made illicit gains – Not a case of mere regulatory non-compliance but deliberate exploitation of financial system – Held: Offences have serious implications on capital market integrity and public trust [Paras 17–23, 31–33].

Decision: Criminal application dismissed – FIR and criminal proceedings not quashed – Petitioners to face trial in accordance with law [Paras 39–40].

Land Acquisition – Market Value Determination – Comparable Sale Evidence – Appellants challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for land acquired for Gas Cracker Project – Reference Court enhanced land value from ₹1,00,000 to ₹3,00,000 per bigha but declined to accept sale instance (Exh. 47) showing ₹6,00,000 per bigha as comparable – Held: Sale instance executed by appellant after notification under Section 4 not reliable without evidence of market stability – Reference Court justified in rejecting sale instance due to proximity and self-serving nature – No error in market valuation at ₹3,00,000 per bigha [Paras 47-52].

Compensation – Severed Land – Partial Award Justified – Appellants sought full compensation for 1B-2K of severed land claiming it had become unusable – Reference Court awarded 1/3rd value – Held: Appellants retain ownership and potential for alternate use – Reference Court’s approach logical and not arbitrary – No interference warranted [Paras 53].

Zirat Compensation – Deduction from Land Value Improper – Reference Court deducted ₹85,77,898 already paid as zirat compensation from enhanced land compensation – Held: Market value of land and zirat are distinct heads under Section 23(1) of the Act – Deduction of zirat from land value contrary to statutory scheme – Reference Court’s deduction set aside – Appellants entitled to receive full land compensation and zirat separately [Paras 59-61].

Compensation Assessment – Parity with Encroachers – Appellants alleged discriminatory zirat compensation vis-à-vis encroachers – Held: Zirat value based on nature and quantity of improvements, not land area – No material on record to support higher entitlement – No interference called for on this ground [Paras 54-57].

Comparable Sales – Evidentiary Value – Post-notification sales can be relied upon only if price trends remain static – Burden lies on claimants – Appellants failed to prove no price escalation after notification under Section 4 – Reference Court rightly declined reliance on such sale instance [Paras 50-51].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Reference Court’s order deducting zirat compensation from enhanced land compensation set aside – Appellants entitled to ₹85,77,898 as additional compensation, with statutory interest – Market value and severed land compensation upheld – Matter remanded to Collector for recalculation of payable balance with interest [Paras 61-62].