Service Law - Payment of Gratuity – Abandonment vs. Resignation – Validity of Resignation Proven – Appellant claimed that respondent abandoned service and thus was not entitled to gratuity – Held: Resignation letter dated 10.04.2013 was duly received and acknowledged by petitioner – Plea of abandonment rejected – [Paras 10-12]. 
 
Jurisdiction – Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority – Earlier litigation confirmed Central Government as the competent authority under the Act – Appeal rightly decided by Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) – [Paras 2(v), 13]. 
 
Forfeiture of Gratuity – Applicability of Section 4(6) – No proven loss, damage, or misconduct – Held: Employer failed to prove any conditions attracting forfeiture under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Mere resignation does not disentitle an employee from gratuity – [Para 5]. 
 
Interest on Gratuity – Delay since 2013 – Private respondent entitled to statutory interest on the gratuity amount from the date it became due until payment – [Paras 8, 15]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Controlling and Appellate Authority’s orders upheld – Petitioner directed to pay Rs.3,63,461/- with statutory interest within 30 days – Application for stay rejected considering the long delay and social welfare nature of the legislation – [Paras 14-18]. 
 
 

Criminal Revision – Appeal against Conviction - Food Adulteration – Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur – Conviction Justified – Dal Masur found adulterated with synthetic colour 'sunset yellow', a prohibited additive not permitted under Rule 29 of the PFA Rules – Court held that even if colour is permitted for other foods, its use in Dal Masur is strictly prohibited – Held: Offence under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act is made out [Paras 15–17].

Service of Public Analyst Report – Presumption of Delivery – Compliance with Section 13(2) of PFA Act Established – Accused claimed non-receipt of analyst’s report – Court held that the registered letter was not returned, raising presumption of due service – Further, accused did not deny receipt in his Section 313 statement – Held: No violation of Section 13(2); argument raised for the first time during arguments not sustainable [Paras 6–9].

Rules 17 & 18 of PFA Rules – Manner of Dispatch and Seal – No Prejudice Caused – Procedural Compliance Presumed – Though Food Inspector did not expressly mention sending seal specimen, the analyst’s report confirmed seal matched – Held: Substantial compliance shown, no prejudice to accused, conviction valid [Paras 12–13].

Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Final Hearing – Sentence Reduced – Though benefit of probation denied due to Section 20AA of PFA Act, Court acknowledged prolonged pendency of over 26 years since offence and 15 years since suspension of sentence – Held: Conviction upheld, but sentence reduced to period already undergone (7 days) considering Article 21 of Constitution and mental agony faced [Paras 30–40].

Final Decision – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Modified – Court affirmed conviction under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act – Original sentence of 3 months RI and ₹500 fine modified – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced to ₹10,000 with four weeks to deposit, failing which original sentence will revive [Para 40].

Taxation Law - Customs – Delay in Adjudication – Rule 16 of Drawback Rules – Notices Quashed – The petitioners challenged show cause notices issued in 2016 alleging misclassification and excess duty drawback, which remained pending till 2023 – Held: Such inordinate delay without adjudication violates principles of natural justice and renders the notices without jurisdiction [Paras 1-20, 33-36].

Export Classification – Final Assessment – No Appeal Filed – Assessment Final – Show Cause Notices Beyond Jurisdiction – Petitioners’ shipping bills were finally assessed with duty drawback granted, and no appeal filed by department – Held: Reopening assessment by show cause notices is impermissible and constitutes review of final order without authority [Paras 12-18, 34, 36].

Call Book Mechanism – Non-Disclosure to Petitioners – Breach of Natural Justice – It was revealed only during court proceedings that the show cause notices were placed under "Call Book" – Held: Non-communication of such placement to petitioners amounts to violation of natural justice [Para 15].

Limitation – Rule 16 of Drawback Rules – Reasonable Time – 3 Years – Gujarat HC Precedent Applied – Held: Although Rule 16 does not specify a limitation period, a reasonable 3-year limitation must be read into it – Notices issued beyond this period are time-barred [Paras 35-36].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedents – Non-Following of Previous Rulings – Condemned – Respondents issued notices contrary to established decisions on classification and limitation – Held: Disregard of binding judicial precedent by adjudicating authorities strongly disapproved [Paras 36-37].

Final Decision – Show Cause Notices Quashed – Petitions Allowed – Held: Show cause notices issued in violation of jurisdictional limits and settled law are quashed – Petitioners entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution [Final Para].
 

Criminal Law - Murder  – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Accused convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstances after eyewitnesses turned hostile – Court found that circumstances such as previous enmity, presence near the scene prior to the occurrence, and recovery of blood-stained shirt were insufficient to form a complete chain of evidence – Held: Mere presence at the scene and previous enmity without direct evidence or clinching circumstantial evidence cannot sustain conviction – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 16-25]. 
 
Recovery Evidence – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Reliability – Recovery of MO1 series choppers and MO2 iron rod at the instance of the accused doubted as weapons did not have traces of blood – Delay in producing recovered weapons before the Court – Held: Recovery not reliable to link accused to crime beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 19-20]. 
 
Ocular Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Value – PW3 who claimed to be an eyewitness was suffering from psychiatric illness and his statement was inconsistent with prior police statement under Section 161 CrPC – Court refused to accept his version – Other witnesses turned hostile – Held: Conviction cannot be based on the testimony of PW3 or hostile witnesses [Paras 16-17]. 
 
Motive – Proof of Previous Enmity – Absence of Supporting Material – Prosecution failed to produce records of the prior incident that allegedly motivated the accused to commit the offence – Held: Motive not satisfactorily proved [Para 18]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence of accused set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in other cases [Para 25]. 
 

Land Acquisition – Discriminatory Deletion – Articles 14 and 21 – Acquisition Upheld – The appellants alleged arbitrary and discriminatory deletion of lands from final acquisition without proper justification or uniform criteria – Court held the deletions were made on legitimate grounds including built-up areas, green zones, and government utility purposes – No evidence of mala fide or favoritism found – Held: The deletion of some lands did not render the entire acquisition invalid [Paras 8–10, 30].

Urban Planning – Jurisdiction of BDA – Validity of Acquisition in Panchayat Areas – Jurisdiction Upheld – Appellants challenged BDA’s jurisdiction over non-metropolitan and Panchayat lands – Court held that acquisition sanctioned by the State Government under the BDA Act is valid and within jurisdiction – Referred to Girnar Traders case affirming urban authorities’ acquisition power [Para 34].

Lapse of Acquisition – Delay in Possession and Awards – No Lapse – Appellants contended that acquisition lapsed under Section 27 of BDA Act and Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Court found possession of 580 acres was already taken, layout formed, and substantial development completed – Acquisition cannot lapse when project is substantially implemented [Paras 14, 31].

Procedural Fairness – Objections and Hearing – Due Compliance – Appellants claimed they were not granted proper hearing under Section 18 – Court held that written objections were invited and considered by BDA in meetings and no requirement of oral hearings under BDA Act – Notification and publication process fulfilled statutory mandate [Paras 22–23, 32].

Public Purpose – Legitimacy of Scheme – Banashankari VI Stage Extension – Valid Public Interest – Formation of layout for residential expansion in Bangalore held as valid public purpose – 5991 sites formed and 4983 allotted – Court held that urban housing need justified acquisition and expenditure of public funds [Paras 35–36].

Relief to Site Owners – Priority Allotment – Equitable Resolution – Court noted that BDA offered alternate site allotment (30’x40’) to site holders per precedent in G.R. Jayamma case – Compensation to be adjusted subject to legal ownership and eligibility criteria – Such scheme considered fair and not a precedent for future cases [Para 33].

Decision – Acquisition Proceedings Upheld – All Appeals Dismissed – The High Court found no merit in the grounds raised by appellants – Acquisition proceedings held legal, fair, and in public interest – Writ appeals dismissed and Single Judge orders upheld [Paras 28–36].
 

SARFAESI Act – Scope of Security Interest – Security Interest Recognized – The petitioner challenged the proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated by HDFC Bank on the ground that there was no registered sale deed in favour of the original borrowers – Court held that even in the absence of such deed, the tripartite agreement, promissory note, and financial obligation created an enforceable security interest as per the amended definition under Section 2(1)(zf) – Held: Security interest validly created under SARFAESI Act [Paras 27–30]. 
 
Tripartite Agreement – Legal Effect – Security Right Enforceable – Builder and borrower executed tripartite agreement with bank securing the loan with enforceable commitment – Despite no registered transfer to the borrower, the builder acknowledged the bank’s charge and agreed not to transfer the property without consent – Held: Such contractual arrangement creates security interest [Paras 6–9, 29–
30]. 
 
Subsequent Sale – Bona Fide Purchaser – No Protection Against Bank’s Right – Petitioner purchased the property from a subsequent buyer who in turn purchased it from the builder without informing or obtaining consent of the bank – Court held the sale to the petitioner does not override prior security interest created in favour of the bank – Held: Doctrine of bona fide purchaser not applicable in presence of prior encumbrance [Paras 13–14, 30–32]. 
 
Availability of Alternative Remedy – Dismissal of Writ – Petitioner argued that they were not “any person” under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Court rejected this, holding that the term includes any aggrieved party – Remedy under Section 17 before DRT considered efficacious – Held: Writ petition not maintainable due to availability of statutory remedy [Paras 3, 33–34]. 
 
Writ Petition – Dismissed on Merits – Security Interest Upheld – Challenge to SARFAESI measures on grounds of lack of mortgage or registered title rejected – Court upheld bank’s right to initiate proceedings and dismissed the writ petition – Held: Petitioner at liberty to approach DRT under Section 17 SARFAESI Act [Paras 30, 35]. 
 
 

Civil Law - Mutation Proceedings Challenged – Based on Time-Barred Decree – Limitation Applies – Orders Quashed - Petitioners challenged mutation granted to respondent No.4 based on a 1995 final decree—Held: Mutation application filed in 2013–2014 was hopelessly barred under Article 136 of Limitation Act—Revenue authorities erred in recognizing a decree long unenforced and beyond prescribed time limits [Paras 6–13, 16].

Section 4 ROR Act – Application for Mutation Must Be Filed Within 90 Days – Mandatory Compliance Required - As per ROR Act, any person acquiring rights via court decree must apply within 90 days—Respondent No.4 failed to comply; thus mutation based on decree is invalid—Court emphasized statutory deadline cannot be relaxed casually [Paras 6, 9–10, 16].

Engrossment of Decree – Does Not Postpone Limitation – Supreme Court Precedent Applied - Citing Chiranji Lal v. Hari Das, Court held that delay in providing stamp paper or engrossment does not delay limitation—Execution period begins from decree date itself [Para 12].

Section 58B of Telangana Land Revenue Act – Not Applicable – Misapplication of Provision - Respondent authorities relied on Section 58B to validate decree—Court held it applies only to occupancy rights, not to decrees in partition suits—Erroneous legal basis rejected [Para 16].

Delay and Laches – Undue Delay Defeats Equity – Mutation Denied - Respondent No.4’s inaction for over 18 years deemed fatal—Court reiterated that law aids the vigilant and not the indolent—Principle of vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt applied [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Mutation Orders Dated 07.03.2015 and 04.11.2019 Set Aside – Revenue Records to Be Rectified – Passbooks to Be Issued to Petitioners in Accordance With Law [Para 17].

Civil Writ - Rejection of application filed under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation Act - Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Completion Without Formal Denotification – Collector Rightly Declined Jurisdiction - Court held that once the Draft Scheme under Section 13(1) is finalized and certificates are issued under Section 15, and the scheme is confirmed under Section 16, the consolidation proceedings are deemed complete for all practical purposes – Mere absence of Gazette Notification under Section 26A does not revive Collector’s power under Section 32 – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 11-12].

Concurrent Civil Suit – Title Suit Pending – Proper Forum Available – Writ Not Maintainable - Since the petitioner had already filed Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 challenging the same gift deed and seeking its cancellation, Court held that consolidation authorities need not proceed in parallel – Civil Court is appropriate forum for adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Delay – Prolonged Delay without Satisfactory Explanation – Petition Filed After 5 Years of Gift Deed - Gift deed was executed in 2016, but petition under Section 32 filed only in 2021 – Plea of petitioner that knowledge arose later was disbelieved – Court noted suppression of fact that petitioner had already participated in earlier title suits related to the same gift [Paras 10-12].

Interpretation – Sections 5 and 32 Read with Full Bench Decision – Voidness of Transfers Post-Consolidation Cannot be Invoked Indefinitely - Following Full Bench in Panna Devi and other judgments, Court reiterated that transfers made post-confirmation of consolidation proceedings cannot be challenged merely due to lack of formal notification under Section 26A if the process is otherwise completed [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Collector’s Order Upheld – Petitioner Directed to Pursue Remedy Before Civil Court [Para 13].

Service Law – Departmental Appeal – Punishment Enhanced Without Notice – Order Set Aside – Petitioner, a police officer, was initially punished with forfeiture of two increments after an incident involving a minor—Home Secretary enhanced punishment to reduction in rank without issuing notice – Held: Enhancement of penalty without show cause notice violates Rule 16.28(3) of Punjab Police Rules – Order set aside as procedurally illegal [Paras 1–3, 6–11].

Rule 16.28 PPR – Enhancement of Penalty – Review Must Follow Due Process – Respondents claimed Home Secretary acted under Rule 16.28 PPR – Held: Enhancement in appeal cannot be justified under review powers unless separate review proceedings are initiated with due notice – Procedure under Rule 16.28 not followed, making order unsustainable [Paras 7–13].

Merits of Misconduct – Disproportionate Punishment – Incident Did Not Involve Misuse of Authority – Petitioner acted during official duty, found two condoms in a minor’s vehicle—No direct act of abuse or harassment attributed to him – Held: Disciplinary authority’s original punishment of two increment forfeitures was proportionate – Further enhancement unjustified [Para 14].

Judicial Precedent – Appellate Authority Cannot Enhance Punishment Without Power – Ref: Nirvair Singh v. Financial Commissioner Taxation, 2019 (20) GSTL 349 – Held: Unless statute confers specific power, appellate authority cannot impose higher penalty – Impugned action ultra vires [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Quashed – Court restores DGP’s order and sets aside Home Secretary’s order enhancing penalty – Petitioner to retain substantive rank of Head Constable [Para 15].