Service Law - Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 – Higher Pension Option – Claim for Refixation on Actual Salary – Petitioner retired APSRTC employee sought direction for consideration of representation dated 02.12.2017 for enhancement of pension on actual salary exceeding ceiling limit of Rs.5,000/-/Rs.6,500/- – Alleged illegal restriction of employer’s contribution to ceiling amount despite contribution on actual salary – Relied on R.C. Gupta and subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Kumar B. – Held: In view of authoritative pronouncement of Apex Court in Sunil Kumar B. laying down guidelines in Para 44 regarding exercise of option and entitlement under pre and post amendment provisions of Para 11(3) and 11(4) – Writ petition disposed of directing adherence to said directions – No independent adjudication required [Paras 13–17].

Provident Fund Contribution – Exercise of Option under Para 26(6) and Para 11(3) – Whether exercise of option under Provident Fund Scheme bars option under Pension Scheme – Referred to R.C. Gupta – Held: Exercise of option under Para 26(6) is precursor and does not estop employee from seeking benefit under Para 11(3) when contribution was made on actual salary – Beneficial scheme not to be defeated by technical cut-off dates [Para 13].

2014 Amendment to Pension Scheme – Validity and Applicability – Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. upheld validity of Notification dated 22.08.2014 with specific directions regarding categories of employees including those retired prior to 01.09.2014 and those who exercised option – High Court followed binding directions under Article 142 and Para 44 of said judgment – Matter disposed in terms of Apex Court guidelines [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of in terms of directions contained in Para 44 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Last Seen Theory - Appellant brought victim to rented accommodation on 1st November 2010 at 8:30 p.m. - Victim found dead on 3rd November 2010 locked inside room - Appellant last seen with victim when they checked into premises - Appellant seen alone outside premises early morning on 2nd November 2010 by landlord and his wife - Appellant disappeared thereafter and did not report to workplace - Victim was under exclusive custody and control of appellant - Held: Prosecution successfully proved appellant was last seen with victim at place and time when victim must have died - Burden shifted to appellant to explain what transpired - No explanation offered - Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 32-50, 61].

Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Exclusive Custody and Control - Victim abandoned matrimonial home due to torture and lived with father PW-12 - Appellant took victim away promising marriage - Victim lived with appellant for three months before death - Victim virtually disconnected from son PW-11 and father PW-12 - Appellant had pervasive and exclusive control over life and movement of victim - Held: When victim under exclusive custody of appellant, appellant owed explanation as to what happened to victim - Exclusive control makes up for absence of direct evidence of motive - Victim's disconnection from family made it impossible for prosecution to adduce evidence of appellant's conduct towards victim [Paras 32-34].

Evidence - Motive - Proof Not Absolute Requirement in Circumstantial Evidence - Defence argued prosecution failed to establish motive for murder - Victim lived exclusively with appellant disconnected from family - Motive of person may remain with him and victim - Held: Proof of motive in circumstantial evidence case assumes significance but is not absolute rule - Provides one more link to prosecution case - Pervasive and exclusive control of appellant over victim makes up for absence of motive - Decision in Nusrat Parween v. State of Jharkhand (2024 INSC 955) inapplicable as that case lacked other circumstances present here [Paras 35-36].

Evidence - Post-Occurrence Conduct - Contradictory Statements - Appellant gave contradictory information to different persons about victim's condition - Informed PW-11 (victim's son) that victim needs medical attention - Informed PW-5 (co-worker) that victim died in accident - Appellant lacked courage to inform PW-11 of mother's death as it would raise immediate suspicion - Appellant confident PW-5 would not suspect him - Held: Contradiction reveals nervousness of appellant after commission of offence - Lie given by accused just after commission of crime is relevant fact calling for adverse inference - Post-occurrence conduct establishes guilty conscience [Paras 37-43].

Evidence - Conduct of Accused - Suspicious Circumstances - Appellant seen outside premises by landlord PW-8 and his wife PW-9 at different times early morning claiming to collect drinking water - No water drum seen with appellant - Appellant seen outside for considerable period witnessed at different points by PW-8 and PW-9 - Appellant disappeared after 2nd November morning and did not report to workplace on 2nd and 3rd November - Held: Unlikely appellant woke early to collect water without water container - Nervousness after commission of crime inferred from conduct - Disappearance coupled with absence from workplace required explanation - No explanation offered [Paras 40-47].

Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Burden of Proof - Prosecution established appellant took possession of rented room with victim on 1st November 2010 at 8:30 p.m. - Appellant and victim last seen by PW-9 entering house - Appellant seen alone next morning by PW-8 and PW-9 at 5:30 a.m. - PW-11 and PW-12 aware victim residing with appellant before death - PW-2 (employer) aware appellant residing with victim - Held: Prosecution discharged burden of proving appellant last seen and stayed with victim - Events at premises fell within exclusive knowledge of appellant - Burden shifted to appellant to demonstrate what transpired - Principles of last seen theory put appellant at place and time when victim died - Only conclusion possible is victim strangulated by appellant [Paras 44-50].

Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Distinguished from Cases Relying Solely on Last Seen Theory - Defence cited Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1190) and Krishnan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2023 INSC 679) where convictions based solely on last seen theory set aside - Held: Present case distinguished as prosecution established pervasive exclusive control over victim, contradictory calls to witnesses, induction as tenants, presence outside premises witnessed by landlord and wife, absence from workplace - Positive evidence established victim under exclusive control of appellant, stayed with appellant, found dead at place appellant brought her - Cases cited inapplicable [Paras 51-52].

Criminal Procedure - Examination under Section 313 CrPC - Inadequate Examination - Defence argued inadequate examination as incriminating circumstances regarding contradictory calls not put to appellant - Evidence of PW-5 and PW-11 recorded in presence of appellant - Held: Inadequate examination not fatal when accused represented by counsel and evidence recorded in presence - Accused gets opportunity to hear witnesses and instruct counsel - Accused must demonstrate prejudice by omission - Appellant failed to show prejudice - Calls were link in chain, not sole basis of conviction - State of Punjab v. Naib Din (2001) 8 SCC 578 applied - Omission does not ipso facto lead to setting aside conviction absent demonstrated prejudice [Paras 53-56].

Evidence - Medical Evidence - Non-Examination of Postmortem Doctor - Section 294 CrPC - Postmortem report indicated death by strangulation with neck muscles crushed - Postmortem doctor not examined but report taken on record and exhibited - No objection raised by appellant - IO and constable who took body for PM gave evidence - Held: Where genuineness of document not disputed, same may be read in evidence without author deposing - Section 294(3) CrPC - Document liable to be treated as exhibit - Non-examination of PM doctor not fatal when report admitted without objection [Paras 57-58].

Evidence - Recovery of Material Objects - Circumstantial Evidence - Blood stained pillow cover and bed sheet recovered from premises - One gamcha (towel) and dupatta (women's scarf) recovered from premises - Postmortem showed death by strangulation - Held: Gamcha and dupatta may have been used to strangle victim - Appellant had requisite accessories to strangle victim - As appellant only person with victim at premises, irresistible conclusion is appellant killed victim with gamcha and/or dupatta available at premises [Para 59].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed - Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000 upheld - Evidence clearly indicated participation of appellant in death of victim - Prosecution proved through circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, exclusive custody and control, contradictory statements, suspicious conduct, disappearance and recovery of strangulation materials - No other conclusion possible in facts and circumstances - Appellant directed to surrender within 10 days.

Civil Law – Amendment of Plaint – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Scope and Principles – Court reiterated that amendments necessary for determining real controversy should ordinarily be allowed – Hyper-technical approach to be avoided – Merits of amendment to be tested at trial – Delay alone not a ground to reject amendment – Limitation plea can be framed as issue after allowing amendment [Paras 7-10, 18-19].

Amendment Application Signed by Power of Attorney Holder – Validity – Objection that power of attorney not formally taken on record rejected – Power of attorney holder is recognised agent under Order III CPC – Plaintiff never disputed authority – Act of attorney is act of principal – Held: Application not invalid merely because POA application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC pending [Paras 11-15].

Limitation – Entry 58 Limitation Act – Amendment Allegedly Time-Barred – Plea of limitation is mixed question of law and fact – Where dispute exists as to applicability of limitation provision, amendment cannot be rejected at threshold – Issue of limitation can be framed and decided at trial – Amendment not to be refused solely on arguable limitation ground [Paras 16-19].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Bar of Subsequent Suit – Applicability to Amendment – Order II Rule 2 operates as bar to subsequent suit and not to amendment of pleadings in pending suit – Objection that amendment seeks to incorporate reliefs from separate suit rejected – Held: Bar under Order II Rule 2 does not eclipse power under Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Para 20].

Withdrawal of Admissions – Allegation that amendment retracts earlier pleadings – Court held consequential amendment open to defendants – No manifest injustice demonstrated – Not ground to invoke supervisory jurisdiction [Para 21].

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction limited – No patent perversity or gross failure of justice found in trial Court’s order allowing amendment – High Court will not interfere merely because another view is possible [Para 23].

Decision: Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed – Order allowing amendment of plaint upheld – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Arbitration – Section 37 Appeal – Patent Illegality – Arbitral award can be interfered with where findings are contrary to contractual terms and material on record – Tribunal’s failure to consider clauses relating to KPIs and turnover projections amounted to re-writing the contract – Award liable to be set aside to that extent [Paras 22, 28–31].

Consultancy Agreement – Termination – Non-performance of KPIs – Agreement provided that non-performance of KPIs for continued two quarters would attract termination – Tribunal’s finding that two quarters’ non-performance had not occurred held ex facie untenable – Payment of consultancy fee for initial months without protest does not preclude consideration of performance for determining two quarters – Termination not illegal merely for want of prior written warning when contractual stipulation permitted termination for non-performance [Paras 23–24, 28].

Interpretation of Contract – Business Plan – Business plan considered to ascertain intent and purport of agreement – Tribunal erred in ignoring clauses 5, 6 and 8 specifying manpower deployment, KPIs and turnover assurances – Finding that six months was too short to achieve KPIs amounted to altering contractual stipulations [Paras 19–22].

Consultancy Fees – Effect of Clause 27 – Where termination is on account of non-performance for two quarters, consultant entitled only to 50% of consultancy fees for period of non-performance – Tribunal erred in awarding entire consultancy fee with interest – Award of Rs.8,65,99,649/- with 18% interest set aside – Parties at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration confined to consultancy fees payable for period 01.08.2014 to 28.02.2015 in terms of Clause 27 [Paras 33–34, 38–39].

Reimbursement – Rental Laptops – Claim supported by material on record – Tribunal’s award of Rs.25,12,378/- towards rental charges for laptops upheld [Paras 35–36].

Reimbursement – Purchase of Software – No contractual clause mandating reimbursement – Invoices in claimant’s name and absence of material linking utilisation exclusively by appellant – Award of Rs.1,09,17,991/- towards purchase of software, storage and UPS held without basis and set aside on ground of patent illegality [Paras 37–38].

Interest – 18% per annum – Since principal award on consultancy fee and software purchase set aside, consequential award of interest thereon also set aside [Para 38].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Arbitral award set aside insofar as it directed payment of Rs.8,65,99,649/- with 18% interest and Rs.1,09,17,991/- towards purchase of software, storage and UPS with interest – Award regarding Rs.25,12,378/- towards rental of laptops sustained – Parties at liberty to initiate fresh arbitration regarding consultancy fee payable for period 01.08.2014 to 28.02.2015 – Pending applications disposed of.

Succession – Intestate Male Hindu – Cognate vs Agnate – Girdhari died issueless and intestate – Plaintiff admitted son of Mohra and uterine brother of Girdhari – Defendants failed to prove they were agnates – Held: In absence of Class I, Class II heirs and agnates, cognate entitled to inherit under Section 8(d) read with Section 3(1)(c) Hindu Succession Act – First Appellate Court erred in ignoring alternative plea based on admitted facts [Paras 20-23].

Pleadings – Grant of Relief on Admitted/Proved Facts – Plaintiff pleaded he was son of Mohra and Chunia – Maternity admitted – Even if paternity disputed, uterine relationship proved – Held: Court bound to grant relief flowing from admitted facts – Appellate Court wrongly rejected alternate claim as “not pleaded” – Finding illegal and perverse [Paras 21-23].

Legitimacy – Presumption – Mohra admittedly married to Chunia – Plaintiff born from Mohra – Defendants alleged kareva marriage with Kirpa but failed to prove same – No evidence of custom or valid remarriage – Held: Presumption of legitimacy operates in favour of plaintiff – Onus to rebut not discharged [Paras 24(ii)-(iii), 25].

Evidence – Failure to Prove Kareva Marriage – Defendants set up plea of kareva between Mohra and Kirpa – No cogent evidence led – Mutation of Kirpa’s estate (Ex.P11) showed inheritance only by widow Narayani and children – Plaintiff and Mohra excluded – Conduct inconsistent with defence case – Appellate Court’s rejection of mutation on conjectures unsustainable [Paras 24(iv)].

Appreciation of Evidence – Misreading by First Appellate Court – Trial Court relied on aged independent witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6) who had special knowledge of family – Evidence wrongly discarded on surmises – Documentary evidence including ration card (Ex.PW5/A) duly proved – No suggestion of fabrication – Held: Appellate Court’s findings perverse [Paras 17, 24(v)-(xiii)].

Voter Lists – Evidentiary Value – Entries in voter lists showing plaintiff as son of Kirpa relied upon by defendants – Held: Voter list not conclusive proof of parentage – At best corroborative – Cannot override consistent oral and documentary evidence and statutory presumptions [Paras 24(xiii)-(xiv), 25].

Lis Pendens – Subsequent Sale – Defendants No.2 to 5 sold suit property during pendency of suit to defendants No.9 and 10 – Held: Purchasers bound by doctrine of lis pendens – Sale deed does not defeat plaintiff’s title [Paras 12, 16].

Regular Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act – Appeal maintainable on ground that decision contrary to law – First Appellate Court’s judgment contrary to settled principles of succession and evidence – Interference justified [Paras 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court dated 21.08.1991 set aside – Trial Court decree dated 14.06.1988 restored – Plaintiff declared absolute owner in possession – Impugned mutation, mortgage and sale deed set aside – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Bar to Cognizance – Offence under Section 182 IPC – Complaint must be in writing by the public servant concerned or by a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate – Where original complaint was made to Superintendent of Police and SHO conducted inquiry – SHO not competent to initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC – Cognizance based on such complaint without jurisdiction [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Law – Section 182 IPC – False Information to Public Servant – Kalandra issued by SHO after inquiry into complaint addressed to Superintendent of Police – Statute does not contemplate delegation of power by superior public servant unless expressly provided – Filing of complaint by inferior officer impermissible – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 5, 7-8].

Delegation of Statutory Power – Express Provision Required – Section 195 Cr.P.C. creates complete bar unless complaint filed by competent authority – Power to delegate must be express and cannot be assumed – Complaint by SHO without authority renders entire trial without jurisdiction [Paras 7-8].

Precedent – Reliance on P.D. Lakhani v. State of Punjab, (2008) 5 SCC 150 – Supreme Court held complaint under Section 182 IPC must be by public servant concerned or superior – Inferior officer cannot lodge complaint – Applied to facts of present case [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Kalandra dated 31.10.2021 under Section 182 IPC and all consequential proceedings including CHI No.1213 of 2021 pending before JMIC, Kurukshetra quashed.

Arbitration – Termination of Mandate vs Termination of Proceedings – Withdrawal of Sole Arbitrator due to ill-health – Mandate terminated under Section 14 – No final award or order under Section 32 – Held, mere termination of mandate does not result in termination of arbitral proceedings – Reference continues and vacancy in tribunal must be filled under Section 15(2) – Arbitration agreement subsists [Paras 21–24, 26].

Substitution of Arbitrator – Section 15(2) – Same Rules Applicable – Court held that expression “shall be appointed according to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced” means rigours of Section 11, including limitation, apply equally to appointment of substitute arbitrator – Application under Section 11 maintainable upon failure of agreed procedure through BCCI [Paras 25, 31, 34].

Limitation – Section 11(6) Petition – Applicability of Article 137 – Supreme Court in M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. held Article 137 (three years) applies to Section 11(6) petitions – Right to apply accrues upon failure of other party/institution after invocation – Limitation applies equally to substitute arbitrator appointment – Technical plea that no limitation applies rejected [Paras 28–33].

Exclusion and Condonation – COVID Extension – Section 14 and Section 5 Limitation Act – Period excluded pursuant to Supreme Court’s suo motu orders in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation – Further exclusion granted for bona fide prosecution of petitions under Sections 29A, 14 and 15 – Residual delay of 76 and 91 days – Held, delay condonable under Section 5 – Formal application not mandatory – Substantial justice requires continuation of arbitral reference [Paras 35–38].

Institutional Arbitration – Failure of Agreed Procedure – Applicants approached BCCI twice for substitution – No appointment made – Court observed that arbitration agreement does not come to an end due to expiry or withdrawal of arbitrator – In peculiar facts, technical objections cannot defeat adjudication of disputes on merits [Paras 25–27, 34].

Order:

(i) Delay in filing the Applications condoned –

(ii) Mr. Justice R. Y. Ganoo (Former Judge, Bombay High Court) appointed as substitute Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Dealership Agreements dated 26 December 2012 and 9 July 2013 –

(iii) Directions issued regarding disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), appearance before Arbitrator, fees as per Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 –

(iv) All rights and contentions kept open – Applications allowed and disposed of [Para 40].

Civil Suit – Challenge to OEA Order – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Bar under Section 39 OCH & PFL Act – Plaintiff sought declaration that order dated 05.04.1984 passed by Tahasildar in OEA Case No.1 of 1976 under Section 5(i) of OEA Act is void – Trial Court decreed suit holding no notice issued – First Appellate Court reversed – Held: Though Section 39 bars civil court’s jurisdiction in matters triable by consolidation authorities, civil court retains jurisdiction where statutory procedure or principles of natural justice are violated – Bar not absolute [Paras 15].

Consolidation Proceedings – Effect on Revenue Proceedings – Section 4(4) and Section 51 OCH & PFL Act – Whether consolidation notification abates proceedings before revenue authorities – Held: Act does not contemplate abatement of proceedings pending before revenue authorities – Jurisdiction of OEA Collector/Tahasildar not taken away by consolidation notification – First Appellate Court rightly upheld validity of OEA proceeding [Paras 13–14].

Lease by Ex-Intermediary – Minor Lessee – Validity of Unregistered Lease Deed – Plaintiff relied on unregistered lease deed dated 13.06.1943 – First Appellate Court found plaintiff aged about 13 years at relevant time – Document contained mutilations especially regarding age – Lease found to be created and antedated after 1946 – Plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence – Held: Lease deed not genuine – Plaintiff’s claim of title based on fabricated document liable to fail [Paras 16–17].

Consolidation ROR – Evidentiary Value – Whether Publication Confers Title – Consolidation ROR published in favour of plaintiff prior to OEA order – Plaintiff contended non-challenge by State renders it final and binding – Held: When foundational document of title (lease) is invalid and plaintiff failed to prove possession, mere publication of ROR does not confer title – Consolidation entry cannot override valid OEA order [Paras 18].

Necessary Parties – OEA Proceeding – Successors of Ex-Intermediary – In view of finding that lease deed itself was fabricated and plaintiff failed to establish valid right, question whether successors of ex-intermediary were necessary parties rendered academic – No interference warranted [Paras 16–17].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings of Fact by First Appellate Court – High Court found no perversity in findings regarding fabricated lease, absence of possession, and validity of OEA proceeding – Held: No substantial question of law survives for interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in T.A. No.75/227 of 1986/87 affirmed – No order as to costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dismissal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Accused Never Appeared – Magistrate dismissed complaints on 29.09.2014 and recorded acquittal despite accused not appearing from 2012 onwards – Continuous issuance of summons and warrants – Held: Section 256 Cr.P.C. contemplates acquittal when case is fixed for appearance/hearing and accused is before Court – Acquittal of an accused who never faced trial is patently illegal and contrary to scheme of summons trial [Paras 52-54].

Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Provision intended to protect accused from harassment when complainant defaults despite accused’s presence – Magistrate must consider whether complainant’s personal attendance was essential and whether adjournment justified – In present case, matter was not at hearing stage and accused never appeared – Invocation of Section 256 improper – Order dated 29.09.2014 illegal [Paras 46-49, 54].

Revision vs Appeal – Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. – Contention that remedy lay in appeal against acquittal rejected – Held: Where so-called acquittal is passed without trial and without evidence at post-cognizance stage, such order is grossly erroneous and amenable to revisional correction – Revisional court competent to set aside patently illegal order – No bar under Section 401(4) attracted in peculiar facts [Paras 56-57].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Sessions Court empowered to examine correctness, legality and propriety of order – Revisional interference justified where Magistrate exercised discretion arbitrarily and contrary to statutory scheme – Restoration of complaint by revisional court upheld [Paras 56-57].

Summons Trial – Scheme under Sections 251–255 Cr.P.C. – Presence of accused is foundational for framing substance of accusation and proceeding with evidence – Without accused’s appearance, trial cannot commence – Consequently, acquittal under Section 256 without accused facing trial unsustainable [Paras 50-53].

Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. – Dismissal for Non-payment of Process Fee – Record showed complainant continuously took steps for issuance of summons and warrants – Complaints not dismissed for default in process fee – Hence Section 204(4) not attracted [Paras 37-41].

Summoning Order – Challenge – Argument that cheque issued by company and company not impleaded – Complaint disclosed personal transaction and issuance of cheques by accused – No material to show cheques drawn on company account – Section 141 NI Act not attracted – Summoning order dated 25.02.2012 valid [Paras 31-32, 62].

Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. – Opportunity of Hearing – Allegation that accused not heard in revision – Record and conduct showed continuous evasion of process – No prejudice demonstrated warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 31, 56].

Expeditious Trial – Section 138 NI Act – Complaints pending since 2012 – Accused repeatedly avoided summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants – In light of Supreme Court directions in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act, trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Para 63].

Decision: All applications filed by accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Cumulative cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed payable to complainant within stipulated time – Application filed by complainant allowed – Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of all connected complaints in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Para 63].