Civil Law - Gift Deed – Acceptance During Donor’s Lifetime – Valid Execution Presumed – Appeal Dismissed - The Court held that the registered gift deed (Exhibit-6), executed by Ramapada in 1988 in favour of Umapada, was validly accepted during the donor’s lifetime – Presumption arose from registered nature of deed, donor’s failure to challenge during his lifetime, and supporting testimonies confirming transfer of possession – Appellants’ arguments regarding delayed mutation or absence of tax payment found insufficient to negate legal effect of the deed [Paras 25–38, 41].

Misrepresentation – No Specific Pleadings or Proof – Allegation Rejected – Appeal Dismissed - The Court rejected the claim that the gift deed was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation – Held: Bald allegations in pleadings without particularized averments, as required by Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and absence of corroborative evidence rendered the claim unsustainable – Ramapada executed multiple deeds on the same day and his conduct did not indicate confusion or coercion [Paras 42–44, 49].

Donor’s Conduct – No Challenge During Lifetime – Validates Transaction – Appeal Dismissed - The donor lived for six years after executing the gift deed but did not raise any objection – His silence, coupled with possession by donee and contemporaneous execution of other deeds, created strong presumption of voluntariness and authenticity – Court refused to impute suspicion absent any evidence of mental incapacity or illiteracy [Paras 34–37, 46].

Decision – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed - The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decree dismissing the suit challenging the gift deed – Held: Plaintiffs failed to discharge burden of proof – Deed was validly executed, accepted, and free from fraud – No costs imposed – Connected application (CAN 2 of 2024) also disposed of [Paras 50–54].

Criminal Law – Gang Rape – Appeal Against Conviction - Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Material Contradictions – Appeal Allowed - The Court held that conviction based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix could not be sustained when her statements under Section 164 CrPC were materially contradictory and uncorroborated – The prosecutrix initially claimed no physical relations and that she went voluntarily, but later alleged repeated gang rape – Held: Her statements lacked reliability and were inconsistent with medical and other evidentiary records [Paras 33–34, 40–41].

Improvement in Statements – Second 164 CrPC Statement Under Doubt – Appeal Allowed - The Court noted that the prosecutrix’s second statement, recorded a month after being in parental custody, was not sought by the investigating officer and appeared court-ordered suo motu – First statement made before magistrate without coercion contradicted later claims – Such unexplained improvements affected credibility and required corroboration [Paras 34, 38–39].

Medical Evidence – No Support for Rape Allegations – Appeal Allowed - Medical report showed no injuries and old hymenal tear; pathological test only faintly suggested prior intercourse – Doctor recorded version matching first voluntary statement – No signs of coercion or assault were found – This contradicted the later claims of repeated gang rape and unconsciousness [Paras 17, 33].

POCSO – Victim a Minor – Still Requires Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Appeal Allowed - Although the victim was a minor per educational records, the prosecution still had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Court emphasized that the burden of proof does not lessen merely because the prosecutrix is underage – Held: Conviction unsustainable in absence of credible, trustworthy evidence [Paras 35, 40–41].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – All Accused Acquitted - The judgment dated 23.11.2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun, convicting the appellants under IPC and POCSO was set aside – Accused Shailendra Kushwaha, Manvendra Singh @ Jhamman Pal, and Malik Chandra were acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in other cases [Paras 42–43].

Eviction Suit – Section 23 PSCC Act – Title Dispute Alleged – Application for Return of Plaint Rejected – Tenant raised dispute of title at belated stage in proceedings initiated in 1995 – Court held that mere plea of ancestral title without substantial evidence or prior action over decades was not sufficient – Repeated admissions by tenant and his son, as well as acknowledgment of landlord’s title in earlier litigation, weighed against tenant – Held: Title issue was incidental and did not require return of plaint – Application rightly rejected [Paras 9-10, 27-36].

Title by Will – Competing Wills Claimed by Defendant's Son and Plaintiff’s Legal Representative – Registered Will in favour of respondent accepted – Defendant witnessed Will in respondent’s favour but did not contest it – Admission by defendant’s son of landlady’s title by asserting rival Will also undermined challenge – Held: Claim of title not bona fide and raised to delay proceedings [Paras 7, 29-32].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Section 23 PSCC – Discretionary Power – No Mechanical Return of Plaint – Court reaffirmed that SCC Court may incidentally consider title issues where necessary to determine landlord-tenant relationship – Held: Unless relief entirely depends on disputed title, return of plaint not mandatory – No patent error in trial court’s reasoning [Paras 23-26, 36].

Final Decision – Revision Dismissed – Trial Court Order Upheld – No miscarriage of justice or improper exercise of jurisdiction found – Trial court directed to conclude proceedings within six months from date of judgment [Paras 37-39].

Criminal Law – Stone Pelting on Police - Sections 147, 353, and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Acquittal – Identification of Accused – Failure to Establish Identity – Acquittal Upheld - Witnesses failed to consistently identify accused amidst mob of 150–200 people – Contradictory depositions and no clear identification of individuals pelting stones – Held: Identity of accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal justified [Paras 9–11].

Suppression of FIR Entry – Adverse Inference – Failure to Exhibit Rojnamcha Sanha – Fatal to Prosecution – FIR based on station diary entry was not produced or proved in trial – Held: Suppression of material evidence warranted adverse inference and undermined prosecution case [Para 12].

Offences under Sections 332 & 353 IPC – No Proof of Official Duty – Documentary Evidence Not Adduced – Acquittal Valid - No duty certificates or station diary entries were produced to prove public servants were performing official duty – Held: Essential ingredient of offence not established; trial court rightly acquitted respondents [Para 13].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence – Interference Not Warranted – No Perversity in Trial Court Findings – Held: View taken by trial court was plausible and based on proper appreciation of evidence – Appellate Court cannot interfere merely because a different conclusion is possible [Paras 15–20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Affirmed - No illegality or perversity found in trial court's reasoning – Appeal dismissed; order regarding disposal of seized property affirmed [Paras 20–21].

Civil Review – Time-Bound Disposal Direction by High Court – No Grounds for Interference – Review Dismissed - The petitioner sought review of a direction in the appellate judgment requiring the Family Court to dispose of a long-pending matrimonial dispute within six months – Court held that such time-bound direction was justified in light of 15 years of ongoing litigation – Constitutional Bench decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad distinguished on facts – Review dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 2–6, 8].

Review Jurisdiction – No Error Apparent on Record – Mere Disagreement Not Sufficient – Review Dismissed - Citing settled principles from S. Murali Sundaram and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, the Court reiterated that review cannot be used to rehear or reargue already adjudicated issues – Petitioner failed to point out any self-evident error or exceptional circumstance – Review petition treated as attempt to prolong litigation [Paras 7–8].

Delay in Matrimonial Litigation – Judicial Duty to Ensure Speedy Disposal – Cost Imposed - Court noted petitioner’s conduct as dilatory, having not disclosed trial progress nor justified the need for review – Emphasized importance of finality in matrimonial cases and judicial economy – Imposed ₹5,000 cost to deter frivolous litigation and directed remittance to Lawyer's Association Welfare Fund [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Review Petition Dismissed with Cost – Finality of Judgment Maintained - Civil Review No. 259 of 2024 dismissed – Direction to dispose matrimonial dispute in six months upheld – Cost imposed and all interim applications disposed [Paras 8–10].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Testing of Non-Pharmacopoeial Drug – Disputed Factual Matrix – Quash Denied - The Company (A1) challenged the testing method used to declare ‘Omnigel’ as ‘Not of Standard Quality’ claiming non-compliance with 2008 departmental guidelines – Court held the testing method and applicability of Rule 46 involved disputed facts to be adjudicated at trial – Complaint against Company not quashed [Paras 6(i)(g), 6(i)(h)].

Screening Committee – Procedural Compliance Established – Quash Denied - Allegation that complaint was filed without requisite approval by Screening Committee was rejected – Court noted documentary evidence showed due approval was obtained – Petitioners’ reliance on Lupin Ltd. case distinguished – No merit in procedural challenge [Paras 6(ii)(a)-(d)].

Delay in Filing Complaint – No Prejudice – Quash Denied - Petitioners alleged expiry of shelf-life of drug before complaint filing prejudiced right to re-analysis – Court held that since company failed to notify intention to controvert analyst report under Section 25(3), right under Section 25(4) was extinguished – Precedents in Brij Lal Mittal and Amery Pharma followed – No prejudice caused [Paras 6(iii)(a)-(g)].

Sanction – Not Mandatory for Offence Charged – Quash Denied - The complaint was not under Chapter IV-A of the Act; hence no sanction under Section 33M required – Even assuming sanction needed, its validity can only be tested during trial – Complaint not quashed on this ground [Paras 6(iv)(a)-(d)].

Managing Director – No Specific Allegations of Responsibility – Quash Allowed - The second accused (Managing Director) was prosecuted solely based on designation without any averment of being in-charge or responsible for business conduct – Company’s license identified specific technical staff responsible for manufacture – Applying Cheminova and Swati Ajay Piramal rulings, complaint against A2 quashed [Paras 6(v)(a)-(j)].

Decision – Company’s Petition Dismissed – MD’s Petition Allowed - Crl.O.P. No. 19832 of 2022 (Company) dismissed – Crl.O.P. No. 19643 of 2022 (MD) allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 7].

Service Law - Departmental Inquiry – Absence Without Leave – Major Penalty – Dismissal Justified – Petitioner was absent for 1220 days between 2004 and 2009 without leave – Contended that no inquiry report or oral evidence was provided and cross-examination opportunity was denied – Respondents argued procedural compliance and lack of sanctioned leave records – Held: Though procedural lapses occurred, petitioner failed to show prejudice or submit any defense or denial even in writ petition – Applying "test of prejudice" doctrine, dismissal upheld [Paras 2–13].

Panchayati Raj – No Confidence Motion – Sarpanch – Validity of Notice – Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 – Petitioner-Sarpanch of Jadida Grama Panchayat challenged notice dated 24.11.2025 issued by the Sub-Collector convening a meeting on 11.12.2025 for consideration of a no-confidence motion against her – Primary contention that the resolution enclosed with the notice was not a "proposed resolution" within the meaning of Section 24(2)(c) of the Act, but merely a resolution to send a requisition to the Sub-Collector for bringing the motion — State contended that the requisition and proposed resolution were signed by 10 ward members (more than one-third of 16 total members), that 15 clear days' notice was given, and that the notice was duly served on the petitioner on 26.11.2025 — No rejoinder filed by the petitioner controverting the State's averments [Paras 1–10].

Proposed Resolution – No Prescribed Form – Intention of Requisitionists – Held, no particular form or format has been prescribed for a proposed resolution under the Act — The intention of the requisitionists is to be gathered on a reading of the resolution as a whole — Resolution at Agenda Item No.11, read in the light of preceding Agenda Items Nos.1 to 10 and the opening paragraph, clearly expressed the intention of the requisite number of members to move a no-confidence motion and disclosed the specific grounds therefor — Agenda Item No.11 satisfied the requirements of a "proposed resolution" under Sections 24(2)(a) and 24(2)(c) of the Act — Judgment in Smt. Kamala Tiria distinguished on facts as that case related to No Confidence Motion against president of a Zilla Parishad where no separate proposed resolution was enclosed [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed — Interim order vacated — Costs made easy.

Service Law - Seniority vs. Qualification – By-Transfer Appointment – Seniority Not Decisive – Although the petitioner (Rajashree A.V) was senior in service, her B.Ed. qualification was in Natural Science, which is not in the same faculty as Sociology – Respondent (Subairabi P.) held B.Ed. in Social Science, which falls under the same faculty as Sociology – Government rightly prioritized relevant qualification over mere seniority [Paras 2-5, 10-12].

Government Authority – Valid Exercise of Power – No Illegality – The Government considered Rule 6.2.28 of Chapter XXXII KER, and found that the respondent met the essential qualification (MA Sociology + B.Ed. in related faculty + SET) – Petitioner lacked B.Ed. in Sociology or related faculty – Government’s preference for respondent was valid and within legal parameters [Paras 10-12].

Binding Nature of Prior Judgment – Inter-Party Adjudication – Challenge Barred – Respondent relied on previous judgment in WP(C) No. 13762/2022 which clarified that equivalency of B.Ed. in Social Science with Sociology is valid – No fresh challenge was made to that ruling – Government’s follow-up order (Ext.P7) was consequential and lawful [Paras 6, 9].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Merit in Challenge – The petition filed by Rajashree A.V was dismissed – The Government’s decision to appoint Subairabi P. as HSST (Sociology) was upheld – Writ petition by Subairabi P. was allowed to the extent of directing approval of her appointment by DEO [Para 12].