Service Law – Refixation of Pay – Retrospective Promotion – Re-option for Pay Revisions – Retired Administrative Assistant granted retrospective promotion to Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 01.11.1971 – Re-option request for 1973, 1978 and 1983 pay revisions rejected as delayed – Tribunal found re-option inadmissible due to absence of retrospective revision in pay scale – However, directed State to implement earlier order granting notional re-fixation of pay (Annexure A2) – Held: Tribunal justified in directing implementation of order already sanctioned but not acted upon [Paras 2, 3, 4, 13, 14]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings of Tribunal unless order is perverse, patently unreasonable or violates basic principles of justice – Tribunal’s direction found consistent with settled legal principles and not warranting interference – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–12, 14]

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s direction to implement Annexure A2 upheld – No grounds for interference under Article 227.

Motor Accident – Compensation – Enhancement of Award – Claimant, a government employee, sustained grievous injuries including facial disfigurement and loss of teeth in a motor vehicle accident involving a Tata Truck – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,27,160/- but granted only Rs. 2,160/- towards medical expenses despite documentary evidence of higher costs – On appeal, High Court found that medical bills and other heads of compensation were inadequately assessed – Held: Medical expenses enhanced based on admissible bills agreed upon by both parties – Compensation for pain and suffering, transportation, and diet also enhanced by consensus [Paras 2–9]

Motor Accident – Determination of Compensation – Judicial Review – Court noted that parties reached consensus on admissible medical bills and other heads – Award modified to grant enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,98,765/- in total – Interest awarded from the date of filing the claim with additional interest of 1% in case of delay in payment – Direction issued for insurer to deposit enhanced compensation within six weeks [Paras 10–12]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,98,765/- – Enhanced amount to carry interest from 03/11/2016 at FD bank rate – Additional 1% interest applicable if payment not made within stipulated time – Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced amount before Tribunal within six weeks.

Civil Law – Agreement to Sell – Refund of Earnest Money – Specific Performance Not Pressed – Plaintiff claimed refund of Rs.46.38 lakhs as part of Rs.85.78 lakhs allegedly paid under agreement to sell dated 04.12.2007 – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim as agreement did not mention payment of any earnest money and lacked clarity on sale consideration – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish payment of any specific amount towards earnest money through cogent evidence – No refund could be granted in absence of proof of consideration or admission by seller [Paras 4, 7].

Civil Procedure – Limitation of Challenge – Scope of Appeal – Before First Appellate Court, plaintiff did not press for specific performance and restricted challenge to refund claim only – First Appellate Court rightly limited its findings to Issue No.3 regarding refund – No error found in courts below in rejecting plaintiff’s restricted claim [Paras 4, 7].

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – Both courts below rejected plaintiff’s case on facts and evidence – No substantial question of law arising from concurrent findings – Held: Second appeal not maintainable under Section 100 CPC where no perversity or legal infirmity shown [Paras 8-9].

Decision:   Appeal dismissed – No merit found – No substantial question of law arises.

Service Law – Inter se Seniority – Assistant Commandants in SSB – Seniority lists issued in 2020 challenged by promotees, LDCE appointees, and direct recruits – Issue revolves around whether seniority should be fixed under Rule 5(2) (order of selection) or Rule 5(3)(iv) (date of continuous appointment) of the 2010 Recruitment Rules – Court holds that 2003 Rules stood fully superseded by 2010 Rules and were not applicable [Paras 25.1, 30(i)]

Statutory Interpretation – Supersession Clause – 2012 Recruitment Rules did not wholly supersede the 2010 Rules – Seniority clause (Rule 5) of 2010 Rules continued to apply – Use of phrase “method of recruitment” in preamble not wide enough to include provisions on seniority – 2010 Rules governed the issue of seniority post-2012 [Paras 25.5–25.9, 30(ii)–(iii)]

Seniority – Interpretation of “Order of Selection” – Rule 5(2) of 2010 Rules refers to “order of selection” but Rules do not define the term – Court holds that in absence of internal guidance, reliance on DOPT OM dated 24 June 1978 impermissible – OM held inapplicable as no recruitment roster exists in SSB – Seniority cannot be based on DOPT OM [Paras 28.1–28.4, 30(iv)–(v)]

Seniority – Applicable Rule – Where Rule 5(2) cannot be applied due to lack of definitional clarity, fallback is Rule 5(3)(iv) which mandates fixation of seniority based on date of continuous appointment – Held: Inter se seniority among all ACs (direct recruits, promotees, LDCE) must be determined under Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 27.4–27.5, 29.1–30(vi)]

Administrative Instructions – DOPT OMs & Parmar Case – Court rejects applicability of DOPT OMs dated 7 February 1986, 3 July 1986, 4 March 2014, and 13 August 2021, as well as Parmar judgment – Held: These are executive instructions and cannot override statutory rules – Not applicable where Rules exist [Paras 25.10, 30(vii)]

Seniority List – Validity – Final seniority lists dated 21 and 23 September 2020 quashed – Draft seniority list dated 5 June 2018 correctly applied Rule 5(3)(iv) for ACs appointed 2003–2012 – Court directs SSB to redraw seniority for all ACs including 2013–2016 appointees as per Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 29.2–29.3, 30(viii)]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Final seniority lists dated 21/09/2020 and 23/09/2020 quashed – SSB directed to reissue seniority lists applying Rule 5(3)(iv) of 2010 Recruitment Rules for all Assistant Commandants, irrespective of mode of recruitment or year of appointment – No costs.

Criminal Law – Assault – Acquittal Reversed – Respondents alleged to have assaulted complainant and his wife with broken glass bottle – Trial Court acquitted accused under Section 324/34 IPC holding prosecution evidence unreliable – High Court finds complainant’s testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and arrest memos – Held: Testimony of PW1 supported by MLCs proves infliction of simple injuries beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal order set aside – Conviction recorded under Section 323/34 IPC [Paras 5, 18–27, 30–31].

Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of Injured Witness – Complainant’s version of events remained consistent with FIR and deposition – Minor inconsistencies regarding site plan and signatures on police documents do not justify rejection of entire testimony – Failure to examine second injured or IO not fatal as primary evidence sufficient – Trial Court erred in disbelieving complainant in toto [Paras 20–27].

Weapon – Dangerous Weapon – Section 324 IPC – Burden of Proof – Complainant claimed injuries caused by broken bottle – Medical report showed sharp injuries to complainant and blunt injuries to wife – No glass shards recovered – Held: In absence of recovery or clarity about nature of glass, prosecution failed to prove use of dangerous weapon – Conviction sustainable only under Section 323 IPC [Para 28].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 11.09.2018 set aside – Respondents convicted under Section 323/34 IPC.

Income Tax – Faceless Assessment Scheme – Reassessment – Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) in issuing notices under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act after introduction of the “E-Assessment Scheme of Income Escaping Assessment, 2022” – Held: Section 151A mandates faceless mechanism for reassessment procedures – Notifications and statutory scheme leave no discretion to the Department – JAOs lack jurisdiction to issue such notices post 29.03.2022 – Impugned notices issued outside the scheme are void [Paras 3–7(E)]

Jurisdiction – Interpretation of Section 151A and Notification – High Court followed binding precedents including Bombay High Court’s decisions in Prakash Pandurang Patil v. ITO and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT – Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP confirms finality of interpretation – Held: There is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO – All reassessment-related notices must be through automated allocation under the faceless scheme [Paras 7(A)–7(D)]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Court reiterated that issuance of reassessment notices contrary to statutory scheme causes prejudice per se – No further proof of prejudice is required to invalidate notices issued by authorities lacking jurisdiction – Right to lawful assessment is protected under law [Para 7(A), 7(F)]

Decision: All writ petitions allowed – Notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act set aside – Jurisdictional Assessing Officers had no authority to issue notices post-2022 Scheme – Consequential proceedings and orders, if any, also quashed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – Financial and Document Forgery Allegations – Petitioner accused of fraudulently obtaining large sums of money and property from informant by exploiting spiritual influence – FIR alleges transfer of land through forged gift deed and adoption deed – Charge sheet filed under BNS – Petitioner in custody since May 2025 – High Court noted pendency of related civil suit seeking cancellation of adoption deed – Held: Dispute predominantly civil with criminal elements – Continued detention not warranted as investigation complete and no custodial interrogation required [Paras 1–6, 9]

Bail – Triple Test – Flight Risk – Tampering with Evidence – High Court found that with charge sheet filed and evidence primarily documentary, risk of witness tampering minimal – Flight risk to be mitigated through surrender of passport – Petitioner’s previous cases noted, but found distinguishable and insufficient to deny bail – Liberty cannot be curtailed solely on allegations without trial – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 7–8]

Criminal Law – Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Proceedings – Acknowledged that a civil suit was filed by informant prior to the FIR challenging adoption deed – FIR silent on civil suit – Court noted that both parties had prior relationship and transactions, which support existence of civil dispute – Held: Bail appropriate as allegations and defences are to be tested during trial, not at bail stage [Paras 5–6]

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner Sambit Ray admitted to bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed include surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, regular appearance before trial court, and prohibition on leaving the country without permission – Court reserves liberty for cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Companies Act Offences – Bail Granted – Chartered Accountants facing prosecution under Sections 143 r/w 147 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 and related provisions for allegedly auditing falsified financial statements of SRS Group companies and concealing related party transactions – Petitioners had not been arrested during investigation – Trial court had issued summons and later warrants, prompting petitions under Section 438 CrPC – High Court held there was no material to show petitioners received disproportionate payments or undue favors in lieu of favorable audit reports – No evidence of complicity in the loan fraud or siphoning of funds – Bail granted as custodial interrogation not required [Paras 1, 3, 24, 29, 30]

Companies Act – Section 212(6) – Twin Conditions for Bail – Applicability – Court held that in absence of prima facie material indicating conspiracy or intent to commit fraud, statutory rigors of Section 212(6) would not preclude grant of bail – Reverse burden clause under Section 212(6) must be triggered only after primary burden is discharged by the prosecution – Held: Petitioners satisfied both limbs of Section 212(6) – Not guilty of offence and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail [Paras 31-33]

Audit Practice – Professional Negligence vs. Criminal Conspiracy – Distinction Drawn – Allegations primarily relate to failure in following auditing standards and non-reporting of circular transactions and related party dealings – Court observed no direct evidence of quid pro quo, criminal intent, or conspiracy with SRS Group controllers – Case does not exceed beyond dereliction of duty – Held: Auditors’ acts, even if deficient, did not amount to criminal complicity in financial fraud [Paras 24, 28-30]

Bank Lending – Role of Auditors – Scope of Responsibility – Consortium of banks (led by SBI) granted large-scale loans to SRS Group – Court found that banks did not rely upon audited financial statements while sanctioning credit – Held: No causal link between auditors' conduct and grant of loans – Bail granted as no complicity established [Paras 26-27]

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted to all petitioners – Conditions imposed to ensure presence before trial court – Court clarified that mere professional lapses without quid pro quo or mens rea do not satisfy threshold under Section 212(6) Companies Act, 2013.

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Violation of Status Quo Order – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Trial Court granted injunction on 30.12.2019 directing parties to maintain status quo – Local Commissioner’s report confirmed ongoing construction by defendants in breach of order – Appellate Court partially allowed defendants’ appeal permitting them to complete construction on existing structure citing equity and investment – Held: Appellate Court erred in rewarding violation of trial court’s injunction by allowing construction completion – Such use of Local Commissioner’s report to justify continued breach undermines sanctity of interim orders – Appellate Court’s order modified – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creation of charge over suit land during pendency of suit – Trial Court’s interim directions restored [Paras 2-9].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Order of Appellate Court modified – Parties directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and nature of suit land – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creating any charge over the property without leave of the Trial Court.