Civil Law – Partnership Firms – Abatement – Appeal by firm – Whether second appeal abates upon death of partner – Suit was instituted against partnership firm under Order 30 CPC without impleading partners personally – One partner died during suit, another during pendency of second appeal – Held: Under Order XXX Rule 4(1) CPC, substitution of legal representatives not necessary – Appeal does not abate for non-substitution of deceased partners [Paras 19–24, 28–30, 42]

Partnership Law – Dissolution and Reconstitution – Firm originally had two partners – Death of one partner does not ipso facto dissolve firm where reconstitution occurs and new partners inducted before retirement of existing ones – Respondent’s own conduct in filing contempt petition against new partners evidences knowledge and implied acceptance of firm’s continued existence – Held: Firm validly reconstituted, and appeal maintainable in name of firm [Paras 34–39]

Procedural Law – Application for Abatement – Maintainability – Respondent sought dismissal of appeal on ground of abatement due to death of partner – Court found respondent failed to apply for particulars of firm’s partners under Order XXX Rule 1 – Also admitted reconstitution in prior proceedings – Held: Abatement application rejected – Appeal can proceed through present partners [Paras 33, 38–42, 49]

Judicial Discipline – Refusal of Stay – Despite request by respondent to stay order rejecting abatement application, Court declined stay citing earlier Supreme Court direction for time-bound disposal of appeal – However, in interest of justice, hearing deferred for limited time to allow respondent to seek relief from Supreme Court [Later Order, Para 50]

Decision: CAN 11 of 2025 (Application for abatement) rejected – CAN 12 of 2025 (Application to proceed through existing partners) allowed – Second appeal to proceed in the name of the firm – Appeal not abated under Order XXX CPC – No stay of order granted – Matter listed for further hearing on 28/01/2026 [Paras 49–50]

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 – Human Trafficking – Cybercrime – Job fraud involving trafficking of Indian citizens to Myanmar where they were held as cyber slaves – Applicants allegedly acted as intermediaries facilitating communication between job seekers and foreign agents in return for commission – Held: Applicants were minor players, unaware of the full consequences – Bail granted post chargesheet [Paras 6(i)–6(vi), 7]

Bail – Successive Bail Application – Post-Chargesheet – Section 483 BNSS – Factors considered – Applicants allegedly acted in good faith without knowledge of the trafficking consequences – Received limited commission – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: Continued detention post-chargesheet would amount to pre-trial punishment – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 6(vii), 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – Sanjay Chandra v. CBI applied – Bail not to be denied as punitive measure where trial is likely to take time and accused’s role is limited – Observations in bail order not to influence trial on merits [Paras 6(vii), 11]

Decision: Applications allowed – Applicants to be released on bail on furnishing bond of ₹50,000/- each with one surety of like amount – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with investigation and trial – Rule made absolute [Paras 8–12]

Motor Vehicles Act – First Appeal under Section 173 – Limited Scope of Interference – Insurer confined challenge only to findings on negligence – No challenge to quantum of compensation – High Court reiterates that findings of fact recorded by Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence [Paras 8–9].

Negligence – Motor Accident – Alleged Contradictions in Testimony – Victim suffered 100% permanent disability – Minor inconsistency as to whether impact was from front or rear – Held: Such contradiction does not shake foundation of case – FIR, charge-sheet and police papers corroborated version of claimant – Tribunal rightly held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle [Paras 6, 9–10].

Motor Accident Claims – Nature of Proceedings – Summary in Character – Tribunal not bound by strict rules of pleadings or proof – Determination to be based on “just compensation” and preponderance of probability – Victims should not be denied compensation due to minor doubts or obscurities – Holistic approach of Tribunal approved [Para 9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Writ/Appeal Jurisdiction – Reliance on Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan – Error of fact, however grave, not a ground for interference – Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence cannot be re-examined in appellate jurisdiction – Findings based on evidence immune from challenge [Para 9].

Costs – Frivolous Appeal by Insurer – Appeal dismissed – Litigation cost of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed on insurer payable to victim in addition to decretal amount – Withdrawal of deposited amount permitted [Para 11].

Interim Applications – Stay – No substantial question of law involved – Prayer for stay declined – Interim Applications dismissed as infructuous [Paras 12–13].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and award dated 04.03.2025 upheld – Costs imposed on Insurance Company – Interim Applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Court empowered to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Proceedings against petitioner examined at threshold [Paras 1–3, 10–11].

Section 498A IPC – Scope of “Relative of Husband” – Neighbour or Stranger – Petitioner alleged to be neighbour of complainant’s matrimonial home – No blood relation or relation by marriage – Neighbours do not fall within ambit of “relative” under Section 498A – Penal provision to be construed strictly [Paras 8–10].

Matrimonial Disputes – Roping in Third Parties – Allegation of Instigation Alone Insufficient – Mere allegation that neighbour instigated husband does not attract offence under Section 498A IPC – No specific overt acts constituting cruelty alleged against petitioner [Paras 4, 8].

Charge Sheet – Scrutiny of Allegations – Name of Petitioner Absent from Core Allegations – Charge sheet and complaint do not disclose prima facie case against petitioner – Continuation of proceedings would amount to misuse of criminal process [Paras 8–10].

Precedent – Binding Supreme Court Law – Ramesh Kannojiya v. State of Uttarakhand – Neighbours cannot be implicated under Section 498A IPC – Reliance placed on Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT of Delhi and U. Suvetha v. State – Strict interpretation of “relative” reiterated [Para 9].

Decision – Proceedings Quashed – Criminal Petition Allowed – Entire proceedings in C.C. No. 32092/2021 quashed qua petitioner – Observations confined only to petitioner and not to influence trial against other accused [Paras 10–11].

Parole – Indigent Prisoner – Surety Bond – Repeated Mechanical Imposition – Waiver Directed – Life convict granted fourth periodical parole of 40 days – District Parole Advisory Committee imposed condition of furnishing two sureties of ₹25,000 each despite petitioner’s proven indigence and despite three prior orders of High Court waiving such condition – Held: Insistence on sureties from an indigent prisoner renders sanctioned parole illusory and amounts to constructive denial of parole – Condition arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional [Paras 1–3, 15, 19–21].

Prison Jurisprudence – Parole as Reformative and Humanitarian Measure – Not Executive Largesse – Parole intended to preserve family ties and aid reintegration – Conditions must conform to Articles 14 and 21 – Poverty cannot be a disqualifying factor for availing parole [Paras 8–9, 19].

Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 – Rule 4 & Rule 8 – Nature of Power to Impose Conditions – Directory and Discretionary – Rule does not mandate furnishing of sureties in every case – Prisoner can be released on personal bond alone where circumstances so warrant [Paras 10–12].

Surety Requirement – Purpose – Means Not End – Furnishing surety is only to secure surrender after parole – Where indigence is established and undisputed, insistence on surety becomes oppressive and exclusionary – Such approach violates equality and dignity of prisoner [Paras 11–12, 15].

Fundamental Rights of Prisoners – Articles 14 & 21 – Prisoners Remain Rights-Bearing Individuals – Economic incapacity cannot justify hostile discrimination – Mechanical insistence on sureties from poor prisoners impermissible – Reliance on Sunil Batra, Moti Ram and Mohinder Singh [Paras 15, 17–19].

Precedent – Natia Jiria v. State of Gujarat (FB) – Poverty Is No Crime – Authority obliged to release prisoner on personal bond when plea of poverty is not rebutted – Discretion must be exercised to advance constitutional protection, not undermine it [Paras 13–14].

Administrative Apathy – Repeated Defiance of Judicial Orders – Despite three earlier High Court orders waiving surety, authorities again imposed identical condition – Held: Reflects disturbing institutional apathy to rule of law – Judicial correction warranted [Paras 2, 15].

Guidelines Issued – Parole Authorities – Uniform and Humane Exercise of Discretion – High Court framed binding guidelines regarding imposition/waiver of surety bonds, recording of indigence, effect of prior waivers, proportionality of bond amount, and coordination with Legal Services Authority – Directions to be followed in all future cases [Paras 22–23].

Relief – Modification of Parole Order – Condition of furnishing sureties waived – Petitioner directed to be released on parole on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 only – Writ petition allowed [Paras 21, 24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Condition of furnishing two sureties set aside – Parole to be availed on personal bond alone – Guidelines issued for future compliance by authorities.

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]

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.

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 17B – Payment of Wages During Pendency of Writ – Respondent workman terminated in 2002 – Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages – Writ petition filed by employer, stay granted in 2007 – Workman filed application under Section 17B in 2018, claiming unemployment – Employer failed to rebut affidavit denying gainful employment – Held: Workman entitled to last drawn or minimum wages from date of application (07.05.2018) till date of superannuation in 2023 [Paras 1-3, 10-11, 15-19]

Delay – Effect on 17B Relief – Delay of 12 years in filing 17B application explained as due to financial hardship – Court declined retrospective relief but allowed limited relief from date of application till superannuation – No bar on relief under 17B merely on account of delay where unemployment established and not rebutted [Paras 5, 10, 18-19]

Employer's Burden – Rebutting Affidavit of Unemployment – Once workman filed affidavit of unemployment, burden shifted to employer to prove gainful employment – Mere assertions insufficient – No proof adduced by employer – Held: Workman entitled to protection under Section 17B [Paras 12-14, 16]

Scope of Court’s Power under Section 17B – Court must grant interim relief where statutory conditions are satisfied – Merits of main case not relevant at interim stage – Minimum wages can be awarded in place of last drawn wages in appropriate cases [Paras 17-18]

Decision: Application under Section 17B allowed in part – Respondent entitled to last drawn or minimum wages (whichever is higher) from 07.05.2018 till deemed superannuation in 2023 – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Monthly payment to continue till 2023 as per direction – Writ petition to remain pending [Paras 19-21]