Service Law – Conveyance Allowance – Orthopaedically Disabled Government Employee – Discriminatory Threshold – Petitioner challenged Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) of the 2016 Rules prescribing 50% disability for orthopaedically handicapped persons with both upper and lower limb impairment to claim conveyance allowance – Court held that the classification lacked intelligible differentia and had no rational nexus with the object of the Act – Once benchmark disability of 40% is certified, no further sub-classification is permissible – Clause held to be ultra vires the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 8-20].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Hostile Discrimination – Benchmark Disability – Persons with 40% or more disability constitute a homogeneous class under the 2016 Act – State cannot create arbitrary distinctions within this group – Rejection of conveyance allowance to petitioner despite 40% certified disability held discriminatory and unconstitutional – Court read down the Rule to make all benchmark disabled employees eligible for the allowance [Paras 13, 15-20, 23].

Disability Rights – Rule Inconsistent with Central Legislation – Rule Subordinate to Statute – Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) was found to be inconsistent with the definition of “person with benchmark disability” under the 2016 Act – No rationale shown by the State to fix a 50% threshold for grant of benefits – Rule read down to harmonize with Central enactment [Paras 13-20, 23].

Administrative Law – Medical Non-Recommendation Not Sustainable – Certificate Based on Invalid Rule – Medical authority’s rejection of claim was based solely on Rule 22(1)(iii), which has been declared unconstitutional – Thus, rejection of petitioner’s claim for allowance on its basis is unsustainable – Memo dated 30.04.2024 set aside [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) read down – Petitioner held entitled to conveyance allowance under Rule 22 – Rejection Memo dated 30.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to pay allowance along with 8% interest within three months – Arrears restricted to 38 months prior to filing of petition [Paras 23-24].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Ad Interim Injunction – Scope of Power of Executing Court – Executing Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining decree-holder from disturbing possession of third party/licensee – Held: Executing court cannot practically grant an automatic stay of execution in absence of stay from appellate court – Filing of appeal does not amount to stay – Order held perverse and contrary to law [Paras 13, 26].

Order 21 Rules 97–103 CPC – Obstruction by Third Party – Nature of Right Required – Opposite Party No.1 entered premises as licensee under dealership agreement with judgment-debtor – Dealership agreement expressly negatived any right, title or interest or exclusive possession – Held: Licensee under judgment-debtor cannot claim independent right or hostile title to resist execution – Executing court erred in treating such party as having prima facie independent rights [Paras 14–15].

Natural Justice – Grant of Ex Parte Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury – Ingredients not satisfied – Executing court failed to assess nature of possession, absence of threat of illegal dispossession, and binding nature of decree – Grant of injunction without application of settled principles held erroneous [Paras 15, 17].

Thika Tenancy – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Lease exceeding 12 years – Permanent (pucca) structures – Claim of thika tenancy raised in execution – Held: Under Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 and subsequent enactments, lease for more than 12 years with pucca structures does not constitute thika tenancy – Both judgment-debtor and licensee cannot simultaneously claim thika tenancy – Executing court wrongly held decree to be prima facie nullity [Paras 17, 19–24].

Execution of Decree – Pendency of Appeal – Doctrine of Merger – Held: Pendency of appeal does not divest decree-holder of right to execute decree unless stay is granted – Executing court cannot go behind decree or question its legality on grounds already adjudicated by trial court and pending in appeal [Paras 13, 18, 20].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Perversity and Material Irregularity – Executing court ignored settled law, relevant documents, and binding precedents – Exceeded jurisdiction by questioning enforceability of decree – High Court justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction and setting aside order [Paras 12, 28].

Compensation to Decree-Holder – Stay of Execution – Principles in Atma Ram (P) Ltd. case – Held: When execution is delayed, decree-holder must be compensated by payment of reasonable occupational charges – Executing court failed to consider this settled principle while granting blanket injunction [Paras 26].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Impugned order dated 25.09.2025 set aside – Ad interim injunction vacated – Executing court directed to decide application under Section 151 CPC afresh after giving opportunity to decree-holder – To proceed uninfluenced by observations of High Court.

Civil Law – Appeal by Non-Party – Grant of Leave to Appeal – Section 96 CPC – Locus Standi – Application by a person who was not a party to the suit seeking leave to file first appeal against an ex parte decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession – Held: Mere non-joinder as a party is not an absolute bar, but the applicant must establish that she is bound by or prejudicially affected by the decree – Non-party must show semblance of subsisting right over the suit property [Paras 5–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Discretionary Order – District Judge granted leave to appeal by a cryptic and non-speaking order without proper reasoning – High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised where the subordinate court fails to consider relevant legal parameters while granting leave to appeal to a non-party [Paras 3, 6].

Ex Parte Decree – Declaration of Title and Possession – Encroacher’s Claim – First Appellate Court relied on Amin’s report showing encroachment by the applicant prior to filing of suit – Held: Encroachment or assertion of an independent claim does not ipso facto make such person “adversely affected” by the decree – Such person had remedy either to seek impleadment in the suit or to file an independent suit [Paras 6–8].

Fraud Allegation – Knowledge of Suit – Effect – Applicant seeking leave to appeal did not plead lack of knowledge of pendency of suit – Allegation of fraud simpliciter insufficient to confer right to appeal against decree – Held: Absence of pleading showing binding effect of decree disentitles non-party from maintaining appeal [Para 8].

Decision: CMP allowed – Order dated 28.01.2020 granting leave to appeal set aside – Non-party cannot challenge the decree by way of appeal – Liberty reserved to seek appropriate independent legal remedy, if so advised.

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Petitioners (A2, A6, A7) sought bail in a case involving 200 kg of ganja – Prosecution relied on confessional statements of co-accused and antecedents of A2 and A6 – A7 had no criminal record – Held: Given commercial quantity and habitual nature of offence, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Bail rightly denied [Paras 4, 5, 19, 20, 23].

Arrest and Remand – Communication of Grounds – Petitioners claimed violation of Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS due to non-furnishing of grounds of arrest – Court held arrest memos and remand reports reflected communication – Petitioners legally represented and applied for bail promptly – No demonstrable prejudice – No merit in plea [Paras 10, 13, 14, 21].

Admissibility – Confessional Statements of Co-Accused – Petitioners argued that reliance on co-accused’s confession was barred under Tofan Singh – Court found statements corroborated by seizure and chemical analysis – Prima facie case made out – Bail declined [Paras 4, 5, 22].

Procedural Lapse – Sampling and Forensic Reliability – Petitioners alleged improper sampling and seizure protocols – Court held such grounds require trial scrutiny – Not a ground to override bar under Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 7].

Constitutional Safeguards – Delay in Production – Alleged delay in producing petitioners before Magistrate found unsubstantiated – Arrest and remand held lawful [Para 6].

Judicial Discretion – Societal Impact of Narcotics Offences – Court reiterated that trafficking of commercial quantity poses serious societal threats – Petitioners failed to show they are not guilty or would not reoffend – Bail justifiably denied [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Decision: Criminal Petitions dismissed – Bail rejected – Petitioners failed to meet statutory conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – No violation of arrest procedure shown – Custody lawful.

Labour Law – Regularization / Permanency – Municipal Corporation Employees – Safai Karmacharis engaged as substitutes/daily wagers for long periods sought permanency on completion of 240 days of service per calendar year under Clause 4(C) of Model Standing Orders – Industrial Court granted declaration of unfair labour practice and directed proposal for permanency – Held: Claim of regularization not maintainable in absence of sanctioned vacant posts and appointments made dehors statutory recruitment procedure [Paras 21, 37–41].

Model Standing Orders – Clause 4(C) – Applicability to Municipal Corporations – Mere completion of 240 days’ service does not confer right of permanency – Applicability of MSO subject to appointment being against duly sanctioned post and in accordance with Municipal law – Division Bench precedents binding – Industrial Court erred in mechanically applying Clause 4(C) [Paras 30–35].

Unfair Labour Practice – Items 6 & 9, Schedule IV – Continuation of workers as daily wagers cannot per se amount to unfair labour practice when no sanctioned posts exist – Failure to regularize employees not appointed against sanctioned posts does not constitute unfair labour practice – Declaration by Industrial Court unsustainable [Paras 38–40].

Public Employment – Creation of Posts – Judicial Limits – Creation or sanction of posts lies exclusively within executive domain – Courts and Industrial/Labour Courts lack jurisdiction to direct creation of posts or mandate regularization policy – Reliance placed on Umadevi, MSRTC v. Casteribe, Ilmo Devi, CEO, ZP Thane [Paras 11–13, 26–29].

Conflicting Supreme Court Precedents – Principle of Precedence – Judgments emphasizing “perennial nature of work” relied upon by workmen contrasted with earlier binding precedents requiring existence of sanctioned posts – Correctness of ONGC v. PCLU doubted and referred to larger Bench – Held: Earlier consistent line of authority requiring sanctioned posts must prevail [Paras 24–27].

Government Policy – Supernumerary Posts – State Government created 4407 supernumerary posts and regularized services of Safai Karmacharis on completion of 20 years – Appointment orders issued excluding benefit of past service – Held: Policy decision cannot be interfered with by Industrial Court; workers not entitled to invoke MSO 4(C) to seek earlier regularization [Paras 39–40].

Individual Complaints – Maintainability – Individual complaints under MRTU & PULP Act maintainable in absence of recognized union – However, relief depends on substantive entitlement, which was lacking in present case [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned judgments and orders dated 30.09.2024, 01.10.2024 and 10.10.2024 passed by Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint ULP Nos. 413 of 2015 and connected matters quashed and set aside – Complaints dismissed – Writ Petition Nos. 4967 of 2023 and 4968 of 2023 dismissed – No entitlement to permanency on completion of 240 days in absence of sanctioned posts.

Criminal Law – Murder and Gang Rape – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Accused were convicted by the trial court for rape and murder of a 19-year-old woman whose body was recovered from a well four days after she was reported missing – Conviction based on alleged last seen theory, motive of failed love affair, and statements of family members – High Court held that prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances that excluded every other hypothesis except guilt – Circumstantial links were neither cogent nor consistent – No reliable forensic evidence linking accused to crime – Held: Conviction unsustainable, appellants acquitted by extending benefit of doubt [Paras 8, 15, 20, 24, 34, 46, 53].

Evidence – Last Seen Theory – PW-1 (mother of deceased), PW-8, and PW-11 claimed to have seen deceased last with accused No.1 on day of disappearance – However, contradictions in time, behaviour of witnesses, and delay in naming accused in statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC weakened credibility – Court held that last seen theory alone is insufficient without corroboration – Conduct of witnesses found unnatural – Held: Last seen theory not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 17, 18, 23, 25, 29, 32].

Evidence – Motive and Relationship Allegation – Prosecution alleged a love affair between deceased and accused No.1 as motive for murder after rejection – No documentary or phone record evidence produced – Statements from family members vague, unsubstantiated – Alleged love affair denied by accused – Court found no motive established on record – Held: Mere suggestion of love affair, without credible proof, cannot substitute legal evidence [Paras 15, 16, 23, 27, 30].

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Conclusive Scientific Corroboration – Clothes of deceased sent for chemical analysis showed no semen or DNA match – Statements of medical officer regarding possibility of sexual assault were inconclusive – No injuries suggesting forcible rape – Recovery of clothes and stick allegedly used in crime unconnected to accused – Held: Forensic evidence failed to support prosecution case [Paras 20, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46].

Benefit of Doubt – Incomplete Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution’s case entirely based on circumstantial evidence – Chain not proved to be unbroken – Significant contradictions and omissions in witness statements – Delay in lodging FIR and contradictions in names of persons last seen with the deceased – Trial court erred in ignoring material gaps in evidence – Held: Appellants entitled to acquittal as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 43, 49, 52, 53, 54].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), and 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released unless required in any other case [Para 54].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Dowry Death Allegation – Accused was charged only under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC after being discharged under Section 304-B IPC – Trial Court acquitted the accused noting inconsistencies and material improvements in prosecution evidence – Held: Acquittal justified as initial missing person report did not allege any cruelty or dowry demand, and later allegations were vague and uncorroborated – No illegality or perversity found in trial court’s findings [Paras 4-7, 25-30].

Evidence – Contradictions and Improvements – Prosecution witnesses including parents and brother of the deceased (PW-9, PW-10, PW-11) made significant improvements and inconsistent statements over time – No plausible explanation for late allegations or omissions at the initial stage – Trial Court rightly disbelieved their testimony – Held: Improvements appeared motivated to falsely implicate accused and fulfil ingredients of Section 498-A IPC [Paras 26-30].

Cause of Death – Suicide or Accident – Post-mortem confirmed death due to antemortem drowning – No eyewitnesses or direct proof of suicide – Held: Prosecution failed to clarify how the deceased fell into the drain – Possibility of accidental fall or other causes not ruled out – No conclusive proof of suicide or abetment [Paras 22, 32-34].

Presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act – Applicability – Held: Presumption of abetment of suicide not attracted unless cruelty is clearly established – Foundational facts not proved – General and vague allegations not sufficient to invoke presumption under Section 113A [Para 33].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Held: Appellate Court will not interfere unless findings of the Trial Court are perverse or contrary to law – Trial Court's view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – No compelling ground to overturn acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 35-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Bail bonds cancelled and surety discharged.

Property Law – Title Dispute – Competing Sale Deeds – Void-Ab-Initio Document – Where a vendor does not possess valid title, the sale deed executed by them is Void-Ab-Initio and does not create any right, title, or interest in favour of the transferee – Appellant's vendors (Nelluri Ramaiah and Siva Naga Parvathi) had no title as the real owners (Nelluri Atchamma and Kolasani Veeraiah) were alive and had purchased the property earlier under a registered sale deed (Ex.B-5) – The appellant's sale deed (Ex.B-1/Ex.B-7) is therefore void and creates no title – The plaintiff in O.S.No.12 of 2006, having purchased from the real owners, proved his title – Lower courts' findings confirmed – Appeals dismissed [Paras 19, 21, 27, 31].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 15(2) – Devolution of Property of Female Hindu – New Plea in Second Appeal – A plea regarding the applicability of Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, concerning devolution of property of a female Hindu dying issueless, cannot be raised for the first time in a second appeal without prior pleadings or substantial question of law framed – The vendor's (Jonnalagadda Koteswara Rao) right to convey property inherited from his wife (Jonnalagadda Aadilakshmi) was undisputed until the second appeal stage – The Apex Court's ruling in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Ponnuswamy and others (2022) clarifies that Section 15(2) applies only if the female Hindu dies without leaving any direct heirs – In the absence of such pleading, the High Court cannot consider this new contention – Plea rejected [Paras 24, 25].

Civil Procedure Code – First Appeal – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Framing of Points for Determination – The First Appellate Court is mandated to frame points for determination and dispose of the appeal afresh, reflecting conscious application of mind and reasoned findings on all issues – However, if the First Appellate Court provides reasons for its judgment, there is no illegality or irregularity – In the present case, the First Appellate Court gave reasons and dismissed the appeals, which is in accordance with law – Appellant's contention regarding non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC rejected – Appeals dismissed [Paras 28, 29, 35].

Specific Relief – Permanent Injunction – Maintainability without Declaration of Title – Where the plaintiff's title is strongly disputed and under a cloud, a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is not maintainable – The plaintiff must seek a comprehensive relief of declaration of title in addition to injunction – Appellant's title was disputed due to her vendors lacking real ownership, making her suit for injunction simpliciter (O.S.No.126 of 2004) not maintainable – The Apex Court's ruling in T.V.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M.Mallappa and Another (2022) supports this position – Lower courts' dismissal of the injunction suit confirmed – Appeals dismissed [Paras 32, 33].

Civil Procedure Code – Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Interference – The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless findings are erroneous, contrary to law, based on inadmissible evidence, or without evidence – The present case does not fall within these exceptions – The High Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for determination – Appeals dismissed [Paras 15, 34, 35].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Common judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court confirmed – Each party to bear their own costs in the second appeals – Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed [Para 36].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Non Bailable Warrants – NDPS Prosecution – Legality of Arrest Warrants – Proclaimed Offender Declaration – Petitioner not named in FIR but implicated through second disclosure of co-accused pharmacist – Initially placed in column No.2 of the charge-sheet – Non-bailable warrants issued by Magistrate and petitioner declared proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Held: In absence of proper service of notice or summons, declaration of proclaimed person is illegal – Further held that Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue such warrants under Section 36-A(1)(b) NDPS Act at investigation stage – Impugned orders quashed subject to costs [Paras 1, 2, 5].

Criminal Law – Disclosure Statement – Evidentiary Value – Petitioner named only in co-accused’s custodial disclosure – Held: Disclosure of co-accused not substantive evidence – Cannot form basis for prosecution without independent corroboration – Reliance placed on settled precedent including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [Paras 2, 5].

Criminal Procedure – Section 73 Cr.P.C. – Arrest Warrant for Aid of Investigation – Challenge to issuance of arrest warrant in absence of cognizance – Held: Warrants cannot be issued merely to aid investigation – Any such power must be exercised strictly as per law – Trial court’s action coram non judice [Para 2].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 26.09.2023, 16.10.2023, 30.11.2023, 06.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and 28.03.2024 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000 as costs with four institutions – On compliance and appearance before Trial Court within 10 days, petitioner to be released on bail during trial – Protection from arrest for 10 days granted – Failing compliance, order stands recalled and petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5-7].