Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Minor Penalty – Scope of Judicial Interference – Lecturer subjected to disciplinary action for manipulation of attendance register, insubordination and unauthorised leave – Enquiry conducted and punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect imposed – Appeal dismissed by University Appellate Tribunal – Revision under Section 60(9) Kerala University Act – Held: Interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only if proceedings are vitiated by perversity, illegality, material irregularity or violation of natural justice – Revisional court will not reappreciate evidence or act as appellate authority – Tribunal’s findings based on evidence and proper appreciation of materials – No ground for interference [Paras 5, 9].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Cross-examination – Petitioner contended that enquiry violated principles of natural justice and Kerala University First Statutes – Tribunal found that adequate opportunities were repeatedly granted and petitioner failed to avail them – Statute 72 does not contemplate a detailed enquiry for minor penalty – Yet enquiry was conducted – Held: Sufficient opportunity afforded – Enquiry not vitiated merely because delinquent failed to participate effectively – No denial of natural justice established [Paras 4, 8].

Charges in Disciplinary Enquiry – Vagueness – Consolidated memo containing nine charges based on earlier memos – Tribunal found that petitioner clearly understood allegations and submitted explanations – Held: Charges not vague – Allegation of vagueness rejected [Paras 4, 8].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Section 60(9), Kerala University Act – High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent reiterating restraint in judicial review of departmental enquiries – Tribunal’s decision neither perverse nor illegal – Revision dismissed [Paras 5, 9].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Judgment dated 14.10.2004 of the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1 of 2004 upheld [Final Order].

Banking Law – Freezing of Account – Dispute over Company Signatories – Axis Bank froze bank and demat accounts of appellant company citing conflicting communications and management dispute – Freeze based partly on letter from shareholder company (VTL) – Held: Axis Bank had no locus to rely on third-party communication – Bank duty-bound to act on customer’s own valid corporate resolutions – Freeze unjustified especially after ROC and MCA unmarked 'management dispute' status [Paras 31–38]

Company Law – Removal of Directors – Locus Standi – Respondents 5 to 7, erstwhile directors, not reappointed/removed validly by EGMs/AGMs – NCLT rejected their oppression and mismanagement claims under Sections 241 & 242 – Held: Absent any stay by NCLAT, respondents ceased to have locus in company affairs or writ proceedings – Cannot seek recall or impleadment post-disposal of writ petition [Paras 39–44]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Recall Application – Recall application and clarificatory application filed post-disposal of writ petition – Held: Such applications not maintainable when no review grounds pleaded under Order XLVII CPC – Addition of parties to disposed-of writ illegal – Order staying prior writ relief and impleading parties without deciding recall application unsustainable [Paras 45–48]

Banking Law – Bank’s Neutrality – Ombudsman and ROC Proceedings – Bank’s intervention in management dispute before NCLT and application for clarification of court’s order without locus – Letter of freeze addressed not to customer company but to M.P. Birla Group – Held: Bank failed in its duties, acted beyond its role, and supported third parties against customer’s instructions [Paras 33, 35–37, 42]

Judicial Discipline – Single Judge Order – Absence of Reasons – Impugned order stayed prior writ relief and kept contempt in abeyance without recording reasons or prima facie findings – Held: Such interim suspension without findings or re-opening writ not sustainable in law [Para 46]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 19/06/2025 in connection with CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2025 arising out of WPA No. 6088 of 2025 and CPAN No. 933 of 2025 set aside – Learned Single Judge to first decide recall and clarification applications before hearing contempt – Stay applications also disposed – Observations tentative and not binding on pending writ applications [Paras 49–52]

Specific Relief – Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiffs seeking specific performance of agreement to sell ancestral land – Agreement silent on key requirement of Nazrana amount of ₹1.5 lakhs to obtain Collector’s permission for sale to non-agriculturists – Plaintiffs failed to assist in discharging encumbrances or paying dues to enable sale deed – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness as per Section 13(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 6.2, 10–13].

Contract Law – Agreement to Sell – Frustration – Agreement for sale of ancestral land executed when defendant in financial distress – Land jointly held and encumbered with loans exceeding ₹4 lakhs – Defendant required to obtain subdivision and Collector’s permission, but consideration received was grossly inadequate to meet obligations – Held: Agreement frustrated due to impossibility of performance – Plaintiffs not entitled to decree [Paras 9, 12–13].

Land Laws – Agricultural Land – Permission for Sale to Non-Agriculturist – Agreement did not mention requirement of Collector's permission or Nazrana payment – Plaintiff being non-agriculturist could not complete purchase without such permission – Held: Absence of contractual clause addressing this statutory requirement rendered performance legally impossible [Paras 10–11, 14].

Evidence Act – Concurrent Findings – Credibility of Defendant’s Evidence – Original defendant died before trial – Legal heir (Defendant 1C) deposed with supporting bank documents – Evidence corroborated non-performance and financial incapacity – Trial Court’s reliance upheld – Appellate interference unwarranted [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Both courts below correctly appreciated evidence and applied settled law – Second appeal dismissed in absence of any perversity or legal error [Paras 15–16].

Restitution – Return of Deposit – ₹1.51 lakh deposited by plaintiffs pursuant to trial court order – No objection from defendants – Held: Amount with accrued interest to be returned within two weeks based on server copy of judgment [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Decree of Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld – Plaintiffs not entitled to specific performance – Deposited amount of ₹1.51 lakhs to be refunded with interest.

Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Offences – Serious Allegations of Sexual and Physical Cruelty – Application under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging dowry harassment, physical assault, sexual abuse including unnatural sex and attempted burning with cigarettes – Allegations spanning over two years of matrimonial relationship – Held: Case not a simple matrimonial dispute but involves grave and serious allegations warranting custodial interrogation [Paras 18–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR – Explanation Acceptable in Sexual Offences – FIR lodged after considerable delay – Explanation that complainant was traumatised, socially stigmatized and earlier attempts to lodge FIR were refused by police – Held: Delay in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual abuse and matrimonial cruelty is not fatal and does not discredit the prosecution case at the bail stage [Paras 12–13].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Recovery of Electronic and Physical Evidence – Allegations that accused possessed intimate photographs, hard disks, jewellery (streedhan), personal documents and electronic devices belonging to complainant – Held: Custodial interrogation necessary to recover crucial evidence, uncover full extent of offence and prevent tampering or misuse of sensitive material [Paras 14, 27–30].

Anticipatory Bail – WhatsApp Chats and Electronic Evidence – Prima Facie Assessment – WhatsApp communications containing abusive language, threats and intimidation relied upon by prosecution – Report under Section 65-B Evidence Act collected during investigation certifying genuineness of electronic evidence – Held: At anticipatory bail stage, Court can prima facie look into electronic material to assess gravity and necessity of custodial interrogation without conducting a mini-trial [Paras 15, 18].

Anticipatory Bail – Marital Consent – Bodily Autonomy of Spouse – Court observed that marriage does not imply automatic or perpetual sexual consent – Non-consensual and unnatural sexual acts within marriage cause physical and mental trauma and constitute grave offences – Held: Allegations of sexual assault within marriage cannot be trivialized at the stage of anticipatory bail [Paras 19–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Personal Liberty and Societal Interest – While personal liberty is important, Court must consider seriousness of offence, societal impact, likelihood of repetition and need for fair investigation – No special or compelling circumstances shown to justify pre-arrest protection – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at initial stage likely to hamper investigation [Paras 21–29].

Decision – Application rejected – Anticipatory bail declined – Trial court order upheld – Clarified that observations confined to bail stage and shall not prejudice regular bail or trial on merits [Paras 30–31].

Industrial Law – Housing Society – Maintainability – Ex-manager filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act and Payment of Gratuity Act – Petitioner society contended it is not an ‘industry’ or an ‘establishment’ under relevant statutes – Held: Cooperative housing society not engaged in systematic commercial activity is not an ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of ID Act – Personal services rendered to members do not amount to industrial activity – Presence of telecommunication towers or club house for members does not convert society into an industry [Paras 18–30]

Labour Law – Payment of Gratuity – Establishment under Maharashtra Shops Act – Held: A cooperative housing society not carrying on trade, business or profession does not qualify as an ‘establishment’ under Section 2(4) of the Maharashtra Shops Act – Consequently, provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act not applicable to such society – Activities confined to managing residential premises and services for members are non-commercial in nature [Paras 31–40]

Jurisdiction – Labour Court and Controlling Authority – Dismissal of society’s applications challenging maintainability of labour proceedings was improper – Labour Court and Controlling Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain claims against a non-commercial residential society – Orders set aside [Paras 28, 30, 40, 42]

Contract Labour – Distinction – Benefits extended to contract workers by their commercial employers cannot be equated to claims by direct employees of a residential housing society – Statutory obligations arise from employer’s status as an ‘industry’ or ‘establishment’ – Petitioner society not falling within those definitions [Para 39]

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Orders dated 17 January 2024 passed by Labour Court and Controlling Authority set aside – Applications filed by respondent under Section 33-C(2) of ID Act and for gratuity under PG Act dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 42–43]

Money Laundering – Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 – Delay in Trial – Applicant in custody for over two years in connection with ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019 under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA – Charges not yet framed – 71 witnesses and over 31,000 pages of documentary evidence cited by ED – Trial of predicate offences before CBI Court not commenced – Held: Continued custody without foreseeable conclusion of trial amounts to violation of Article 21 – Right to speedy trial is paramount and overrides statutory restrictions under Section 45 of PMLA where prolonged incarceration is evident [Paras 26, 32-34, 44, 48].

PMLA – Twin Conditions under Section 45 – Constitutional Courts’ Powers – Citing judgments in V. Senthil Balaji, Manish Sisodia, and K.A. Najeeb, Court held that where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, constitutional courts may relax twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA – Held: In present case, both conditions deemed satisfied – Applicant not found guilty at this stage and not likely to commit offence on bail [Paras 43-45].

Bail Jurisprudence – Bail is Rule, Jail is Exception – Citing Manish Sisodia v. ED, Bachhu Yadav v. ED, and Ramkripal Meena v. ED, Court reiterated that statutory bail restrictions must yield to constitutional protections where trial is inordinate and incarceration disproportionate – Bail not to be withheld as punishment when trial unlikely to conclude soon [Paras 35, 39, 40, 42].

Trial Delay – No Fault of Applicant – Though ED alleged delay was caused by accused, Court found no fault attributable to applicant – Adjournments sought by co-accused not to prejudice applicant’s right to bail – Bail refusal cannot be justified solely on pendency caused by others [Paras 32-33].

Public Servant Accused – Shell Entities and Money Trail – Allegations that applicant, as Dealing Assistant in Department of Higher Education, verified fraudulent scholarship claims and laundered proceeds through entities formed with family members – ED traced proceeds of crime to land purchases and business investments – However, Court held that these are to be adjudicated at trial – Bail not to be denied solely due to role as government servant [Paras 21.3–21.15, 46].

Investigation Status – No Tampering Risk – ED expressed concerns about tampering and influence – Court held concerns can be addressed by imposing strict bail conditions – Evidence largely documentary and already seized – No likelihood of tampering [Paras 21.17, 57].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant ordered to be released on furnishing personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial attendance and prevent tampering – ED granted liberty to seek cancellation upon violation of terms.

Civil Law - Compromise Decree – Lok Adalat Award – Bar of Appeal – First appeal filed under Section 96 CPC challenging compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat on ground of fraud – Held: Appeal not maintainable in view of Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat award deemed to be a decree and final – No appeal lies therefrom [Paras 2, 8].

Challenge to Lok Adalat Compromise – Permissible Remedies – Law reiterated that a compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat can be challenged only before the same court under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC or by invoking writ/supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on limited grounds – Separate suit or appeal expressly barred [Paras 7(i)–(vi), 8].

Third Party to Compromise – Right to Challenge – Even a third party to the suit cannot maintain a regular appeal against a Lok Adalat compromise decree – Remedy confined to writ jurisdiction or appropriate statutory procedure as settled by Apex Court precedents [Paras 7, 8].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – District Judge erred in rejecting application seeking dismissal of first appeal as not maintainable – Impugned order found contrary to settled legal position – Revisional court justified in interfering under Section 115 CPC [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Civil Revision Allowed – Impugned order dated 06.03.2023 set aside – Application for rejection of appeal allowed – RFA No.40 of 2006 dismissed as not entertainable – Liberty granted to appellant to approach appropriate forum as per law to challenge compromise decree dated 21.03.1993.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Personal Search – Non-Compliance with Section 50 – Conviction Set Aside – Accused allegedly found in possession of 450 grams of charas during personal search on a bus – IO failed to inform accused of right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Held: Violation of Section 50 vitiates conviction – Recovery rendered suspect and inadmissible – Conviction set aside [Paras 16–25].

Investigation – Anticipatory Mention of FIR Details – Recovery Memo Prepared Before FIR – FIR number and NDPS section mentioned in recovery and search memos even before registration of FIR – Casts serious doubt on authenticity and timing of documents – Documents appear to be prepared post-facto – Judicial scrutiny finds prosecution version doubtful [Paras 17–22].

NDPS Act – Evidentiary Standards – Higher Degree of Proof – Supreme Court decisions in Noor Aga and Ranjan Kumar Chadha reiterated – Strict procedural compliance required due to stringent nature of punishment – Courts must ensure individual liberty and fair trial rights not compromised [Paras 18, 23].

Trial – Fairness and Procedural Safeguards – Section 50 Compliance Mandatory – Constitutional mandate of fair trial requires strict adherence to statutory safeguards – Casual or defective investigation cannot form basis of conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery held unreliable [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court set aside – Accused acquitted of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act – Bail bonds discharged – Direction to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC for appearance before Supreme Court if required.

Constitution of India – Scheduled Areas – Municipal Inclusion – Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 – Validity – Scheduled Areas Constitutionally Protected but Not Frozen – State Government issued notifications under Sections 3 and 329 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 including several villages/Gram Panchayats notified as Scheduled Areas within municipal limits – Challenge on ground that Article 243-ZC creates an absolute bar against municipal governance in Scheduled Areas – Held: Mere notification of an area as Scheduled Area does not create an absolute constitutional embargo on application of State legislation – In absence of a notification by the Governor under Paragraph 5(1) of Fifth Schedule excluding or modifying the Act, the Municipalities Act continues to apply [Paras 10–10.7, 18.1].

Article 243-ZC – Scope and Effect – Part IX-A Inapplicable but State Law Not Automatically Excluded – Article 243-ZC(1) excludes automatic application of constitutional municipal framework, not State legislative competence – Municipal governance may operate subject to Fifth Schedule discipline – Article 243-ZC is protective, not prohibitory [Paras 11–11.4].

Fifth Schedule – Paragraph 5(1) – Power of Governor – Exclusionary or Modificatory – Not Condition Precedent – Governor’s power enables exclusion or modification of laws but does not require affirmative notification for applicability – Unless law is excluded or modified, it continues to operate in Scheduled Areas – Reliance placed on South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Adivasis for Social & Human Rights Action [Paras 10.1–10.5].

Scheduled Areas – Constitutional Status – Effect of Municipalisation – Municipal inclusion does not denotify or dilute Scheduled Area status – Constitutional protections under Article 244(1), Fifth Schedule, Articles 46 and 275(1) and role of Tribes Advisory Council continue unabated – Territorial reclassification cannot extinguish constitutional safeguards [Paras 13, 18.2].

PESA – Applicability After Municipal Inclusion – Once Scheduled Area is included within municipal limits, it ceases to be a “village” or “Panchayat area” for purposes of Part IX – Full operational framework of PESA cannot continue – However, tribal consultative mechanisms must continue in advisory capacity to safeguard tribal interests until Parliament enacts law under Article 243-ZC(3) [Paras 15–16.6].

Legislative Vacuum – Absence of MESA – Court’s Constitutional Concern – Parliament has not enacted Municipalities (Extension to Scheduled Areas) law despite Article 243-ZC(3) – Resultant governance vacuum acknowledged – Held: Municipalised Scheduled Areas shall be governed through a hybrid framework balancing municipal administration and Fifth Schedule protections – State directed to place judgment before Union Government for legislative consideration [Paras 16–18.5].

Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Limited Interference – Inclusion within municipal limits is legislative/statutory policy decision – No arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity found – Notifications upheld [Paras 4.4, 19].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – Impugned notifications upheld as constitutionally valid – Hybrid governance framework directed – No interference warranted.