Foreigners Law – Expulsion vs. Deportation – Right to Challenge – Petitioner’s wife declared foreigner by Foreigners Tribunal in 2017 – Failed to avail opportunity granted by High Court in 2021 to appear and contest – Tribunal’s ex parte opinion revived – Court held that declared foreign nationals have no right to reside in India – Expulsion upheld [Paras 3–4, 34–36]

Constitutional Rights – Applicability to Foreigners – Article 21 – Petitioner contended wife’s fundamental rights violated by alleged illegal pushback – Court held: Only right to life and liberty under Article 21 applies to foreigners, and expulsion does not amount to arrest – No violation of Article 22 or CrPC provisions [Paras 15, 22, 30, 33]

Procedural Safeguards – Failure to Avail Opportunity – Petitioner’s wife failed to appear before Tribunal despite extension granted by High Court – Verified copy of order was ready on 29.09.2021 – No explanation given – Presumption under Section 119(g) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam applied against her [Para 34]

National Security – Influx from Bangladesh – Court referred to Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India to emphasize ongoing external aggression due to illegal migration – Held: State has absolute authority to expel declared foreigners, including by direct return to Bangladesh, irrespective of diplomatic acceptance [Paras 12–14, 18, 20, 26]

Jurisdiction – Foreigners Tribunals – Declaration has civil consequences – No need to produce declared foreigner before magistrate as per CrPC – No violation of due process found – Tribunal procedures held distinct and valid under Foreigners Act [Paras 32–33]

Relief Sought – Rejected – Petitioner sought production of nationality verification and handover documents – Court held such evidence not required to justify lawful expulsion – No cause for initiating inquiry against officials found [Paras 9, 35–36]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No costs – Registry to place order in W.P.(C) No. 3170/2025 for record.

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Plaintiff sought partition of properties belonging to deceased parents but failed to implead all legal heirs including five sisters – Held: Suit not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties in a claim based on intestate succession – All co-heirs must be before court in a partition suit [Paras 24-29]

Court Fees – Valuation of Suit – Plaintiff undervalued properties in amended plaint by reducing earlier declared valuation – Held: Suit improperly valued – Appropriate court fee not paid – Issue decided against plaintiff [Paras 31-36]

Succession – Will – Validity and Genuineness – Will dated 12.10.2001 executed by Smt. Krishna Wanti in favour of husband – One attesting witness (son) examined – No suspicious circumstances proved – Held: Will validly executed under Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Bequest to spouse not unnatural [Paras 37-57]

Probate – Will of Sh. Hans Raj Gulati – Objections rejected – Will dated 30.05.2003 registered and witnessed – Attesting witness and Sub-Registrar examined – Delay of 7 years in filing probate not fatal as right accrued in 2009 upon amendment of plaint – No proof of mental incapacity or alternative Will – Held: Will valid and genuine – Probate granted [Paras 58-111]

Limitation – Probate Petition – Right to apply accrues when necessity arises – Filing within 3 years of amendment to plaint found within limitation under Article 137 – Continuous right to apply upheld [Paras 80-85]

Evidence – Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of daughters in Will not suspicious – No evidence of coercion or fraud – Objectors failed to prove existence or contents of alleged torn Will – Hearsay inadmissible – No proof of alternate testament [Paras 86-103]

Relief – Partition Suit dismissed – Plaintiff found to have no share in properties – Probate petition allowed – Petitioners granted letters of administration upon compliance [Paras 112-117]

Decision: CS(OS) 2159/2002 dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and undervaluation – Plaintiff held to have no share in suit properties – TEST.CAS. 90/2014 allowed – Will dated 30.05.2003 of Hans Raj Gulati upheld – Petitioners entitled to probate and letters of administration subject to formalities – No order as to costs.

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act – Rebuttal by Accused – Standard of Proof – Accused admitted signature on cheque but set up defence that cheque was part of multiple cheques issued for chit transaction to a third party – Defence supported by reply notices and contemporaneous documents – Held: Accused need only raise a probable defence and not prove it beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption successfully rebutted on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 12, 15–19].

Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Onus on Complainant – Complainant claimed cash loan of ₹5,00,000/- without documentary proof – Failure to disclose source of funds in statutory notice – Contradictory deposition regarding who sought the loan – Held: Once financial capacity is disputed, burden shifts back to complainant – Failure to prove capacity weakens prosecution case [Paras 7, 12, 19].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Transaction allegedly routed through intermediary (R. Venkateshappa) – Complainant admitted no difficulty in examining said person – Same counsel represented complainant and intermediary in connected proceedings – Held: Non-examination of crucial intermediary, despite defence specifically alleging misuse of cheque, is a material omission attracting adverse inference and probabilising defence [Paras 18–19].

Appreciation of Evidence – Perverse Findings – Courts below proceeded solely on admission of signature on cheque – Ignored contradictions in complainant’s testimony, reply notices and defence evidence – Held: Failure to consider entire material on record renders findings perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2016 and 17.04.2021 set aside – Petitioner/accused acquitted of offence under Section 138 NI Act – Bail and surety bonds discharged.

Labour Law – Gratuity – Limitation – Application filed after 2–3 years of retirement – Held: No limitation prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Rules cannot override statutory right – Rule 7(5) of the Central Rules clarifies that delayed claims are not invalid – Delay does not defeat the right to gratuity under a beneficial social welfare legislation [Paras 8–10].

Principal Employer – Liability for Gratuity – Contractual Employment – Petitioners argued workers were contractor’s employees – Court held contracts were a camouflage as workers served continuously for over 20 years despite changing contractors – Principal employer liable to pay gratuity under Section 21(4) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Right to recover from contractors preserved [Paras 13–16].

Wages – Definition – Gratuity Included – As per Section 2(vi)(d) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, gratuity payable on termination of employment is part of "wages" – Hence, principal employer’s statutory obligation includes gratuity as wage component under applicable labour laws [Paras 17–18].

Interest on Delayed Gratuity – Held: Under Section 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employer is liable to pay interest from date gratuity becomes payable (i.e., from date of retirement), not from date of application – Interest rightly awarded from date of superannuation till payment [Paras 21–22].

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Gratuity as Property – Gratuity is a vested right and recognized as property under Article 300A of the Constitution – Cannot be denied except by authority of law – Delay or contractual arrangement cannot justify withholding payment [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Orders of Controlling and Appellate Authorities upheld – Respondents entitled to withdraw deposited gratuity amounts and recover any deficit – Principal employer liable to pay and may recover from contractors where applicable.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a housing redevelopment project – Petitioners, allegedly acting in concert, misrepresented ownership and control over two flats and induced complainant to invest Rs.1.91 crores – Despite MoUs and arbitral proceedings, FIR disclosed cognizable offences – Custodial interrogation held necessary in light of allegations of forged representations and financial misappropriation – Bail applications dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 7, 20-24]

Cheating – Misrepresentation of Ownership – Petitioners claimed to represent 11 flats before Arbitrator, though they owned only 9 – Two flats allegedly belonged to complainant, who was not party to arbitral proceedings – Petitioners knew complainant paid Rs.1.91 crores, but falsely recorded Rs. 40 lakhs – Allegations of deliberate misrepresentation found plausible at this stage [Paras 6, 15, 21]

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Economic Offences – Supreme Court rulings relied upon to highlight seriousness of economic offences – Held: Custodial interrogation of petitioners necessary to trace money trail and examine alleged conspiracy – Protection under anticipatory bail would obstruct further investigation [Paras 22-23]

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Petitioners argued dispute was civil and settlements were executed – Court held such documents do not negate FIR allegations at this stage – Matter involves serious allegations of inducement, fraud, and misuse of investor funds – Civil proceedings do not preclude parallel criminal liability [Paras 10-11, 21]

Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Custodial interrogation held necessary in view of serious economic offences and prima facie material suggesting conspiracy, misrepresentation, and financial misappropriation – Observations in judgment confined to bail issue only [Paras 24-26]

Maintainability – Writ Appeal by Statutory Committee – Quasi-judicial authority not “aggrieved” – Admission Supervisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of Act 15 of 2017 passed orders withholding and cancelling admission under OBC category – Single Judge set aside Committee’s orders and declared student eligible – Committee filed writ appeal – Held: Committee’s functions under Section 8 are adjudicatory with Civil Court-like powers under Section 8(3) – Beneficiaries/adversely affected persons are third parties and not the adjudicator – Adjudicating authority cannot challenge superior court’s interference with its quasi-judicial orders – allowing such appeals would undermine judicial discipline and create anomalous situation of adjudicators routinely appealing adverse decisions – Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1, 5, 9, 13, 17-18, 20].

Medical Education Admissions – Admission Supervisory Committee – Nature of powers – Section 8 Act 15 of 2017 – Committee’s role includes inquiry into complaints/suo motu action and recommendations including declaration of admissions invalid – powers of Civil Court while conducting inquiry – Held: such statutory scheme indicates adjudicatory and not ministerial character – Committee’s decisions under Section 8 operate as quasi-judicial orders [Paras 9, 13, 17].

Judicial Discipline – Adjudicating authority’s locus to litigate – Proper party vs aggrieved party – Committee was arrayed as respondent in writ petition challenging its orders – Held: mere impleadment does not create duty/right in adjudicator to defend its own decision through appeal – decision may be supported/challenged by persons benefited/adversely affected or by appropriate official respondents having duty to ensure fair admissions – Committee itself cannot be appellant against setting aside of its orders [Paras 18-19].

Statutory Appeal under Section 12 Act 15 of 2017 – Practical filing as writ petitions due to procedural vacuum – Court noted administrative history: nomenclature MFA(KME) introduced, but Division Bench earlier directed return of such appeals due to absence of rules on certified copy/court-fee etc – despite 2021 Rules, appeal procedure still not provided – hence writ petitions continue to be treated as maintainable against committee orders and are rostered to Single Bench under education subject codes – However, this does not confer appellate locus on Committee as adjudicator [Paras 14-16, 18].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Para 20].

Civil Writ - Fair Price Shop – Misappropriation of Food Grains – Scope of Revision under Clause 24 – Respondent No.5 was found guilty by District Supply Officer (DSO) of misappropriating wheat (22.6 quintals), rice (11.36 quintals), and pulses, and violating other regulatory requirements – DSO passed order cancelling authorization and forfeiting security deposit – Revision before Deputy Commissioner dismissed, confirming findings of irregularity – Second revision allowed by Hon’ble Minister without recording finding on legality or propriety – Held: Minister exceeded revisional jurisdiction under Clause 24(1) by setting aside findings without examining their correctness – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 3–5, 13–16]

Consumer Rights – Locus of Complainants – Preliminary objection raised that original complainants (ration cardholders) have no locus to challenge Minister’s order – Rejected – Held: Under Distribution Order, 1975, complainants have standing to challenge revisional orders unlike under Licensing Order, 1979 – Judgment in Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre followed – Supreme Court ruling in Vishvas not applicable as it related to Licensing Order [Paras 6–10]

Revisional Powers – Jurisdictional Error – Hon’ble Minister ordered fresh enquiry and reinstatement of authorization based on general statements from cardholders and respondent’s long-standing service – Held: Revisional authority must record findings on legality, propriety, or irregularity of prior orders – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable and beyond jurisdiction [Paras 14–16]

Subsequent Events – Fresh Enquiry – Respondent No.5 relied on post-order enquiry showing no current complaints – Held: Subsequent developments irrelevant where earlier findings of misappropriation were unaddressed by revisional authority – Fresh material not part of record and cannot justify flawed revisional order [Para 12]

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Order dated 19/07/2021 passed by Hon’ble Minister quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to Hon’ble Minister to decide revision afresh after recording findings on allegations of misappropriation – Respondent No.5 to continue operating fair price shop unless otherwise barred – Revision to be decided preferably before 31/05/2026 [Para 17]

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Pre-2015 Claims – Petitioner sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds in 2013, 14 years before superannuation, and applied for compassionate appointment of his physically disabled son – Claim rejected in 2017 on grounds that 2015 scheme was inapplicable to cases before 05.08.2014 and that no medical incapacitation certificate was submitted – Held: Petitioner’s application dated 09.04.2014 fell within Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme and had to be considered under Circulars of 2005 and 2007 – Circular dated 24.09.2007 provided for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment for employees retiring before age 55 due to incapacitation – Bank erred in insisting on certification by medical board where scheme did not so require [Paras 4, 24–34, 36–37]

Ex Gratia Compensation – Eligibility under 2007 Circular – Employee voluntarily retired before 55 due to incapacitation and made timely application – Circular B(iii) of 24.09.2007 provides entitlement to ex gratia payment without need for medical board certification – Bank’s denial based on technicalities rejected – Petitioner's medical retirement accepted without objections, indicating implied recognition of incapacitation – Rejection of benefit arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 25–33]

Policy Interpretation – Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme – Applications pending as on 04.08.2014 or made before that date must be dealt with under earlier circulars – Bank’s failure to apply Clause 24 and denial of relief under 2007 Circular was unjustified – Bank directed to process ex gratia compensation within 12 weeks [Paras 26, 36–38]

Compassionate Appointment – Financial Hardship – Bank’s argument that petitioner was receiving pension and retiral benefits not relevant – Held: Financial need not sole determinant – Purpose of compassionate appointment includes broader social obligation – Case law in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar and Malaya Nanda Sethy applied [Paras 12–13, 35]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned communication dated 16.01.2017 set aside – Respondent Bank directed to consider petitioner’s application for appointment of son on compassionate grounds and grant ex gratia compensation under Clause B(iii) of Circular dated 24.09.2007 – Payment to be processed within 12 weeks [Para 38]

Civil Law – Withdrawal of Suit – Plaintiff’s Right to Abandon – Dominus Litis – Plaintiffs, having settled with Defendant No. 5, sought to abandon the suit against him and delete Plot No. 73 from the suit – Trial Court rejected the application citing pendency of counter-claim by other defendants – Held: Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, plaintiffs have absolute right to unconditionally withdraw suit or part thereof – Court cannot compel plaintiff to continue suit – Rejection of amendment to delete co-defendant and suit plot unsustainable [Paras 14–21, 41].

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Maintainability Against Co-Defendant – Abuse of Process – Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 sought to raise a counter-claim against Defendant No. 5 to recover Rs.1.61 crores under a 2008 agreement – Added declaratory relief against plaintiffs to sustain counter-claim – Held: Under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, counter-claim must be against plaintiff – Mere inclusion of a relief against plaintiff is insufficient if it is a subterfuge to target a co-defendant – Counter-claim primarily against D5 not maintainable [Paras 25–40].

Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment to Written Statement with Counter-Claim – Liberal Standards Do Not Apply Where Claim Is Legally Impermissible – Trial Court erred in allowing amendment when main intent was to set up a legally barred counter-claim against co-defendant – Liberal standard for amendment of written statement cannot justify permitting unlawful claims [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Common order of Trial Court set aside – Amendment of plaint to delete Defendant No. 5 and suit plot allowed – Amendment of written statement and counter-claim by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 rejected – Rule made absolute [Para 42].