Payment of Gratuity – Delayed Payment – Statutory Interest – Controlling and Appellate Authorities awarded 10% interest on delayed gratuity payment under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Petitioner-Bank challenged the rate, relying on a coordinate bench order allowing only 6% interest – Court held 10% interest remains valid and enforceable as per Central Government Notification dated 01.10.1987 – Coordinate Bench order contrary to statute and precedent held per incuriam – Statutory obligation to pay interest on delayed gratuity cannot be diluted [Paras 2, 5, 7, 16–18, 26–27].

Doctrine of Per Incuriam – Coordinate Bench Ruling on 6% Interest – Judgment in W.P.(C) No.20586 of 2022 disregarded as having been passed in ignorance of binding precedents and statutory provisions – Held: Any decision contrary to law declared by the Supreme Court or earlier coordinate benches without statutory reference is per incuriam and cannot be treated as precedent [Paras 5.2, 5.3, 16–18, 22–27].

Professional Conduct of Counsel – Duty to Disclose Binding Precedents – Counsel for the petitioner was found to have appeared in multiple identical matters involving the same legal issue – Failure to bring binding judgments to the notice of coordinate bench amounted to professional misconduct and unethical conduct – Court reiterated that lawyers must uphold honesty and fairness in submissions [Paras 19–21].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Decisions – High Courts are bound to follow law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 – High Court decision refusing to follow or reviving a view rejected by the Supreme Court is null and void – Court cites precedents to reinforce constitutional obligation to maintain judicial hierarchy and discipline [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of Appellate Authority confirming 10% interest on delayed payment of gratuity upheld – Petition found frivolous and wasteful of judicial time – Petitioner directed to pay ₹20,000 as costs to Opposite Party No.1 within six weeks [Paras 28–30].

Criminal Law – Permission to Travel Abroad – Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 – Parameters for Judicial Discretion – Petitioner, facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 380, and 34 IPC, sought permission to travel abroad for business purposes – Earlier permissions granted in 2023 and 2024 were duly complied with – Trial Court rejected latest application fearing abscondence – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Restriction thereon must satisfy procedure established by law which is just, fair and reasonable – Courts must balance liberty of the accused with the administration of justice, ensuring presence during trial [Paras 7–10, 13].

Flight Risk – Interpretation of “Likely to Abscond” – Predictive Standard – The term “likely” must denote a reasonable or palpable probability, not a speculative possibility – Courts cannot deny liberty based on conjectural fears – Determination of flight risk must rest on tangible and cogent material [Para 11].

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Grant of Permission to Travel Abroad – Courts must consider gravity of allegations, antecedents, bona fides of travel, and safeguards ensuring return – No rigid formula can be laid down – Discretion must be exercised with fairness, equity, and good conscience [Paras 12–13].

Procedural Justice – Hypertechnical Approach Decried – Petitioner’s earlier itinerary had lapsed; remitting matter to trial court would serve no purpose – Procedural rules are handmaidens of justice, not its mistress – High Court permitted travel directly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner permitted to travel abroad as per itinerary (15.10.2025–03.12.2025) subject to conditions imposed by trial court including furnishing of ₹10 lakh bank guarantee – Guarantee liable to forfeiture in case of non-return or violation of conditions [Para 15].

Family Law – Property Dispute Between Father and Son – Ownership and Possession – Father filed suit seeking mandatory injunction against son to vacate portion of self-acquired residential house – Son claimed house was joint family property and he was a coparcener – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that property was purchased by father and his brother from their personal income and was not HUF property – Defendant failed to produce any evidence of coparcenary or ownership – Held: Son residing in father’s house as a permissive occupant cannot claim legal right to remain in possession – Father has absolute right to revoke permission and seek possession [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 6, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability – Son argued that suit should have been for possession and not mandatory injunction – Held: When defendant is in permissive possession without legal title and plaintiff remains in joint possession, suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable – No bar in seeking injunction to recover possession from permissive occupier [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Licensee vs. Permissive Possession – Meaning and Scope – Use of term "licensee" in plaint not fatal – Courts held son was not a licensee in strict legal sense but a permissive occupant – Gratuitous permission by parent creates no vested right – Suit maintainable even in absence of formal licensor-licensee relationship – Distinguished permissive possession from contractual license [Paras 8–12].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by both courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right or raise a question of law – Held: No ground for interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal devoid of merit [Paras 14, 17, 18].

Exemplary Costs – Abuse of Process – Prolonged litigation by son against father despite lack of legal claim – Court deprecated the conduct and imposed exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on appellant – Observed such litigation erodes family trust and burdens judiciary [Para 24, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower courts affirmed – Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on appellant to be paid to respondent.

Civil Law – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Not Mandatory in Non-Commercial Disputes – Trial Court struck off defence for non-filing of written statement within 120 days – Held: Provision is directory in non-commercial suits – Delay not inordinate and was justified due to pending Section 8 application – Striking off of defence unsustainable [Paras 41–49].

Arbitration – Application under Section 8 of Arbitration Act – Timing – Written Statement – Filing of application before submission of first substantive statement is valid – Mere delay in filing written statement during pendency of Section 8 application cannot be penalized – Appellate Court erred in holding written statement should have been filed irrespective of Section 8 application [Paras 38–40].

Civil Litigation – Fair Trial – Ex Parte Decree – Repercussions of Striking Off Defence – Trial Court passed decree of ₹15.69 Cr ex parte – Appellate Court reduced amount but upheld procedural bar – Held: Courts must prefer decision on merits, especially in matters involving public funds – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 49–55].

Civil Revision – Maintainability – When Trial Court Order Striking Off Defence is Erroneous – Revision against trial court order striking off defence dismissed relying on law applicable to commercial disputes – Held: Error apparent – SCG Contracts case applies only to commercial suits – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 45–46].

Remand – Suit Remitted to Trial Court – In absence of written statement, no adjudication on merits possible – Additional evidence cannot be allowed without pleadings – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh trial from stage of written statement – Trial to be concluded within one year [Paras 52–56].

Decision: RSA-305-2021 allowed – RSA-199-2021 dismissed – CR-4288-2019 disposed of – Judgments and decrees set aside – Order striking off defence quashed – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh decision after permitting written statement [Paras 54–56].

Service Law – Recruitment Cancellation – Prospective Candidate’s Right – Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 invited applications for Assistant Professors – Petitioner No.2 appeared for interview and was found selected – Chancellor annulled process citing UGC amendments and ongoing litigation – Held: Cancellation was arbitrary since the amendments were prospective and did not alter eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) – Factual findings in meeting dated 27.10.2017 were erroneous – Selection had only been pending for 13 months, not two years – Writ petition maintainable despite being filed by a prospective candidate [Paras 4-6, 13-16]

Administrative Law – Breach of Government Order – Quashing of Chancellor’s and Vice-Chancellor’s Orders – Government Order dated 08.04.2017 explicitly protected ongoing advertisements from the impact of UGC Regulation amendments – Respondents’ reliance on amended norms to cancel selection was in breach of binding directive – Impugned orders dated 27.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 quashed [Paras 13-16]

Judicial Precedent – Applicability – Distinguished Earlier Judgment – Judgment in Dr. Amit Kumar Shukla v. Chancellor (2019) held not binding as it related to a different advertisement (No. 1/2016) and did not consider Supreme Court ruling in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India – Petition held maintainable – Right of prospective candidate to challenge arbitrary withdrawal of selection upheld [Paras 9-12]

Relief – Appointment Direction – Sealed Cover Result Confirmed Selection – Petitioner no. 2’s name found in sealed result as selected candidate – No appointment made due to interim protection – Court directed University to appoint petitioner no. 2 to the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) within 30 days [Paras 17-19]

Decision: Writ petition allowed in part – Orders dated 27.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 quashed – Subsequent advertisements modified to this extent – University directed to appoint petitioner no. 2 after completing formalities within 30 days.

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.

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.

Banking Law - Debt Recovery – SARFAESI Proceedings – Maintainability of Writ – Appellant, a Small Enterprise under the MSMED Act, challenged action taken by the Bank under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act citing failure to follow RBI’s rehabilitation guidelines – Contended that Bank could not invoke SARFAESI without exploring rehabilitation under 2015 RBI Notification – High Court held that since the grievance arose from action under Section 13(4), remedy under Section 17 before DRT was available – Writ petition rightly dismissed by Single Judge for availability of alternate remedy [Paras 2, 5–8]

Debt Recovery Tribunal – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act – Appellant argued that DRT lacked jurisdiction as the challenge was to the very applicability of SARFAESI – Rejected – Held: Section 17(1) permits any aggrieved person to approach DRT against measures under Section 13(4), including cases where SARFAESI action is alleged to be invalid ab initio – Jurisdiction of DRT not ousted – No fault found with Single Judge’s reasoning [Paras 6–8]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Writ petition rightly not entertained – Appellant directed to avail remedy before DRT [Para 9]

Criminal Law – Cheque Dishonour – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellant/complainant alleged supply of export garments worth ₹24.20 lakhs to accused partnership firm – Two cheques (₹2,37,785/- total) issued by accused were dishonoured for insufficient funds – Trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 138 NI Act – Lower Appellate Court acquitted accused giving benefit of doubt – Held: Evidence produced by both parties self-serving with no proof of exchange or acknowledgment – Ex.P4/P5 invoices, delivery notes, and account statements produced by complainant lacked authentication or proof of service – Cheques bore overwritten dates, weakening reliability – Accused produced documents showing procurement of raw materials and communications with foreign buyers in their own name – Evidence revealed disputed commercial relationship and lack of clarity on liability – In criminal trial, benefit of doubt must go to accused – Appellate Court’s reversal not perverse or unreasonable – No ground to interfere under limited scope of appeal against acquittal [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused under Section 138 NI Act confirmed – No interference warranted with judgment of First Appellate Court.