Writ – Service Law - Gratuity – Principal Employer’s Liability – Contract Workers – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), the petitioner, awarded a housekeeping contract to M/s. NIS Management Limited (Respondent No. 3) – Private respondents (workers) filed claims for gratuity, which were allowed by the Controlling Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority – Controlling and Appellate Authorities held that HPCL was the principal employer and remained liable for gratuity despite workers being engaged through contractors – Held: The principal employer is liable to pay gratuity if the contractor fails to do so, in accordance with Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – The employer has the right to recover the gratuity amount from the contractor at the time of cessation of employment [Paras 4-5, 26].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Determination of Liability – HPCL argued that the contract workers were employed and paid by M/s. NIS Management Limited, and thus, the contractor was solely liable for gratuity – The Appellate Authority applied the "For Whom, By Whom" doctrine, holding that continuous service with HPCL through changing contractors creates an obligation on HPCL as the principal employer – Held: Even where a direct master-servant relationship does not exist, continuous engagement through contractors does not absolve the principal employer from liability for gratuity payments [Paras 4, 17-19].

Judicial Precedents – Employer’s Obligations – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Hussainbhai, Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, (1978) 4 SCC 257, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, (2019) 13 SCC 82, and Bombay High Court decisions in Subramaniam S. Arjun v. ONGC (2023) and IIT Bombay v. Tanaji Babaji Lad (2024) – Held: The presence of intermediaries (contractors) does not sever the real employer-employee relationship if the workers continue to serve under the principal employer – The principal employer is responsible for gratuity under labor welfare laws [Paras 15-18].

Decision – Writ Petition Partially Allowed – The Appellate Authority’s order is modified to the extent that HPCL may recover gratuity payments from the contractor (Respondent No. 3) when employment ceases – No interference required with the findings of the Controlling and Appellate Authorities regarding HPCL’s liability under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [Paras 26-27].
 

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Public Humiliation of Victims – Bail Denied – The petitioner, a factory owner, was accused of blackening the faces of three girls, an elderly woman, and a minor boy, forcing them to wear placards confessing theft, and parading them in public – The video of the incident went viral – Held: Such acts amount to vigilante justice and "Taliban-style punishment," violating victims' dignity and social standing – Given the serious nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation is necessary – Anticipatory bail denied [Paras 6-8].

Criminal Procedure – Custodial Interrogation Required – Destruction of Evidence Concern – Investigating authorities sought recovery of the petitioner’s mobile phone and CCTV recordings (NVR/DVR) from his factory – Held: Granting anticipatory bail at this stage could allow the petitioner to influence witnesses and destroy evidence – Custodial interrogation justified to ensure a fair investigation [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Precedents – Protection of Victim’s Dignity – Stringent Approach to Vigilante Actions – Citing Supreme Court judgments on mob justice, the court emphasized that individuals cannot take the law into their own hands – Held: The act of public shaming was dehumanizing and merited strict legal scrutiny – No exceptional circumstances warranting anticipatory bail were present [Para 8].

Final Decision – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Option to Apply for Regular Bail on Surrender – Petition dismissed – However, the petitioner was granted liberty to surrender before the trial court within 10 days and seek regular bail, which shall be decided in accordance with law [Para 9].
 

SARFAESI Act – Possession without Proper Delegation – Violation of Section 14(1-A) – Possession by Additional Commissioner of Police without being an officer subordinate to the District Magistrate (ADM) – ADM's order delegating powers found beyond statutory limit – Held: Possession taken contrary to the SARFAESI Act and violative of Article 300A – Illegal possession set aside [Paras 18-22].

Movable Property Seizure – Absence of Notice – Deprivation without Due Process – Petitioners dispossessed of movable assets without notice or proper proceedings – Failure to comply with express directions of DRT and ADM to serve notice on all guarantors – Held: Violation of mandatory requirement of law and breach of Article 300A rights [Paras 21-22].

Writ Maintainability – Alternative Remedy Not a Bar – Availability of remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI Act does not preclude writ when possession is taken illegally – State machinery and police involved in deprivation without lawful authority – Held: Writ petition maintainable in the facts of the case [Paras 15, 20, 23].

Police Involvement – Unauthorized Assistance to Recovery Agents – Police acted without proper delegation under Section 14 – Possession proceedings conducted solely by recovery agents with police aid – No ADM or properly delegated officer present during possession – Held: Process vitiated for want of lawful authority – Supreme Court ruling in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur applied [Paras 11-13, 24].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Possession proceedings quashed – Liberty granted to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in compliance with Section 14(1-A) of SARFAESI Act – ADM directed to oversee future compliance – Petition disposed of accordingly [Para 25].

LL.B. Course – Delay in Completion – Ordinance 7(c)(3) – Student Allowed to Appear in Back Paper Beyond Six-Year Limit – Withholding of Result Unjustified – The University, after allowing the student to appear in the back paper and issuing a provisional admit card, attempted to withhold the result citing the six-year completion rule – Held: Once the University permitted appearance and did not act within time to stop the examination, it could not later withhold the result based on eligibility grounds – Court ruled in favour of the student and upheld the Single Judge’s order directing issuance of mark-sheet and degree [Paras 2-4, 13-18].

University’s Duty – Scrutiny of Eligibility – Procedural Responsibility – Lack of Verification Cannot Prejudice Student – The Court held that the responsibility to verify eligibility lay with the University or affiliated college before permitting exam appearance – Lapse in duty could not justify denial of the result after successful completion of examination [Paras 15-18].

Provisional Admit Card – Interpretation of Clauses – Non-fabrication Clause Critical – The Court interpreted the “subject to eligibility” clause as applicable in cases of fraudulent conduct by the student – Since no fabrication was alleged, the clause could not justify result detention [Para 13-14].

Lis Between Student and University – Estoppel and Conduct – Conduct of University Estops It from Withholding Result – The Court held that the University's inaction and subsequent change of stand amounted to estoppel and it could not disadvantage the student after he had completed the course and cleared the examination [Para 18-22].

Precedent Application – Reliance on Shri Krishnan, Sanatan Gauda, Guru Nanak Dev Cases – Wherein Students Were Allowed Relief After Procedural Lapses by Institutions – The Court followed binding precedent from the Supreme Court in similarly situated matters and held that the facts warranted equitable relief in favour of the student [Paras 23-24].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the University’s special appeal – Directed the University to release the mark-sheet and degree accordingly [Para 25].
 

Land Use Conversion – School to Nursing Home – Statutory Breach – Conversion Set Aside – Court held that the impugned layout plan dated 25.10.2021 violated the procedure under Section 79(3) of the HSVP Act and 
Sections 4 & 5 of the 1963 Act – No public objections were invited – Authorities acted ultra vires – Layout plan quashed [Paras 6–9, 14–17]. 
Natural Justice – Absence of Public Notice – Fatal to Layout Change – Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of prior publication and opportunity for objections before amending layout or development plans – Conversion without this process deemed illegal and arbitrary [Paras 7–8, 14]. 
Promissory Estoppel – Deviation from Original Layout – Held Arbitrary – Petitioners were allottees relying on educational land use – Reversing that without process violated legitimate expectations – Change deemed unjustified in absence of public interest [Paras 3, 6, 9]. 
Healthcare Justification – Urban Demand Not Sufficient – No Override of Legal Process – State's reasoning of increasing healthcare density held insufficient to bypass due process – Administrative efficiency cannot trump legal mandates [Paras 9, 16–17]. 
 Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned revised layout plan dated 25.10.2021 quashed – State restrained from acting upon it or conducting e-auction of converted sites – Directed to follow statutory procedure before any future changes [Paras 18–20]. 
 

Arbitration – Modification of Arbitral Award – Jurisdiction of Court under Section 34 – Modification Set Aside – The appellants challenged the order of the District Judge modifying claim Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of an arbitral award – The High Court held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not empowered to modify an arbitral award, and can only set it aside on specified grounds such as fraud, bias, or violation of natural justice – Relying on precedent including National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Court ruled that modifying an award would exceed the court’s jurisdiction – Held: The District Judge had acted beyond jurisdiction in modifying the arbitral award, and the modification was therefore set aside [Paras 4-8].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order of District Judge Modifying the Award Set Aside – The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 31.03.2016 in A.S.No.39/2008, and dismissed the Arbitration Suit [Para 9].
 

Criminal Law – Protection of Public Servants – Sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Proceedings Partially Quashed - Petitioners were police officers accused of misconduct during their official duty at a public event – A private complaint was filed against them after they registered an FIR against the complainant’s husband – Trial court took cognizance of multiple offences, rejecting the need for sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Held: Since the alleged acts were committed in the discharge of official duties, sanction was required for most offences – Decision: Cognizance set aside for all offences except under Sections 354 and 354B IPC [Paras 7-10, 24-28].

Scope of Official Duty – Acts Done in Excess – Test for Sanction under Section 197 CrPC - Court examined whether the alleged misconduct had a reasonable nexus with official duties – Held: Even if a public servant exceeds his duty, as long as there is a connection with official functions, sanction is required – Decision: Official actions taken by the petitioners warranted protection under Section 197 CrPC, barring exceptions for certain offences [Paras 9-17].

Public Order and State Notification – Kerala Police Officers Covered Under Section 197(2) & (3) CrPC - The trial court held that police officers were not entitled to protection under Section 197 – Court referred to a Kerala government notification extending such protection to police personnel maintaining public order – Held: The petitioners were covered under the notification and thus required prior sanction for prosecution – Decision: Trial court’s view on the non-applicability of Section 197 CrPC was incorrect [Paras 26-27].
 

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Arrest without FIR or Grounds of Arrest – Detention Declared Illegal – The detenu was picked up without any FIR or communication of reasons for arrest – FIR was registered hours later, only after a Warrant Officer’s intervention – Held: Arrest violated Articles 21 and 22 and Section 47 of BNSS – Detention declared void ab initio [Paras 1–6, 16–17].

BNSS Compliance – Section 35 and 47 – No Notice or Written Grounds of Arrest – Procedural Safeguards Violated – No notice under Section 35(3) issued – Grounds of arrest not communicated forthwith – Arrest held contrary to statutory and constitutional safeguards – Mere post-facto FIR registration cannot cure illegality [Paras 4, 17].

Judicial Interpretation – Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar – Written Communication of Grounds Mandatory – Court relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 – Held: Failure to inform arrestee of arrest grounds in writing vitiates custody – Procedural compliance essential to protect liberty under Articles 21 & 22 [Paras 14–15].

Custodial Dignity – Routine Arrest Without Justification Not Permissible – Citing Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and D.K. Basu, Court reiterated that power to arrest must be exercised with caution and justification – Custodial action impacts reputation and liberty and must conform to due process [Paras 7, 10–11].

Role of Warrant Officer – Ministerial Capacity Only – Overstepping Jurisdiction Deprecated – Court clarified that a Warrant Officer cannot adjudicate legality of arrest – Findings in Warrant Officer’s report regarding legality were beyond mandate and disapproved by the Court [Para 20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Detention declared illegal – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Arrest and remand declared void due to non-compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards [Paras 21–22].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Transferee Pendente Lite – Not Maintainable – Petitioner purchased suit property during pendency of litigation – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – Executing court should have dismissed the application under Rule 97 CPC at the threshold in view of bar under Rule 102 CPC – Revisional court erred in dismissing the application outright rather than remanding the matter for preliminary determination of res judicata [Paras 22–30, 35–36].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability to Transferee During Suit – Rights Subordinate to Decree – Petitioner’s purchase in 2001 was during pendency of Original Suits No. 33/1991 and 151/1991 – Supreme Court precedents reaffirm that such transfers do not affect rights under decree – Transferee bound by outcome of litigation irrespective of notice – Held: Petitioner cannot resist execution of decree passed in 2003 [Paras 18–20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Revisional Court Cannot Assume Role of Executing Court – Revisional court should have remanded matter instead of rejecting the execution application – Observed: Supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly – Revisional court exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating on merits where trial court had not decided the matter finally [Paras 31–34].

Execution Delay – Directions for Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Mandate for Timely Execution – Relying on Periyammal (2025) and Rahul S. Shah (2021), Court reminded executing courts to dispose of execution proceedings within six months – Expressed concern over 10-year pendency of application filed in 2014 – Direction issued to dispose matter within one month [Paras 30, 36–37].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Matter Remanded to Executing Court – High Court set aside both revisional and trial court orders – Directed executing court to decide application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC afresh in light of law on lis pendens and Order XXI Rule 102 CPC within one month [Para 37].