Permissive Possession – Adverse Possession Claim Rejected – Appeal Allowed – The plaintiff-appellant sought possession of land transferred under an agreement to sell, which was subsequently cancelled. The respondent-defendant claimed adverse possession, citing long-standing occupancy post-termination. Held: Possession acquired through an agreement to sell is inherently permissive; adverse possession cannot arise until the vendee repudiates this permission and establishes hostile ownership. Asserting adverse possession while retaining rights under the agreement is contradictory and invalidates the adverse possession claim [Paras 22-25, 28].

Doctrine of Part Performance and Adverse Possession – Incompatibility – The Court emphasized that a vendee in possession under an agreement to sell cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession and part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Following Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, the Court ruled that permissive possession through an agreement precludes hostile possession until explicit repudiation of the agreement occurs [Paras 24-26].

Limitations and Permissive Possession – Applicability of Article 65 – The Court applied Article 65 of the Limitation Act, noting that limitation starts from dispossession or overt hostility. Here, no proof of adverse conduct was shown, as the defendant's possession stemmed from the agreement's permissive basis, which remains until formal revocation [Paras 21, 23].

Restitution Under Void Contract – Section 65, Indian Contract Act – The Court held that a contract rendered void necessitates restitution. Since the agreement failed, the defendant must restore possession to the plaintiffs per Section 65. The principle of restitution applies where the defendant seeks to benefit from a void contract without fulfilling its terms [Para 30].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts. The suit for possession is decreed, with instructions that the defendant vacate the property, as adverse possession is unsubstantiated. The principle of restitution under void contracts mandates possession reversion to the plaintiffs.

Bail in NDPS Cases – Medical Grounds – Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Granted with Conditions - The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, citing critical health conditions requiring care outside the prison setting, while the prosecution opposed the application due to the commercial quantity involved and alleged serious misconduct involving misuse of position by police personnel. Given the petitioner’s critical medical needs, the court held that stringent conditions on release could meet the justice requirements and balance the health needs – Bail was granted, overriding Section 37’s rigor in this context, with specific restrictive and rehabilitative conditions on the petitioner [Paras 9-12].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Ensuring Fair Trial and Prevention of Offense Repetition - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to submit detailed identification records and barred possession of firearms, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitation and reform as part of bail considerations – These conditions reflect the judiciary's intent to mitigate risks of witness tampering and recurrence of offenses, balancing bail with public safety concerns [Paras 14-19].

Discretion in Bail for Medical Reasons – Role of Proportionality and Necessity - Emphasizing the necessity for proportionality in bail conditions, the court aligned with Supreme Court observations that bail restrictions should not infringe rights disproportionately – The petitioner was held eligible for bail on medical grounds, subject to compliance with conditions supporting public and individual safety [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Granted – Given the petitioner’s critical medical condition and satisfaction of initial Section 37 conditions, the court granted bail with stringent restrictions to safeguard public safety and ensure the petitioner’s compliance.

Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Minimum Wages Act vs. Industrial Disputes Act - The petitioner challenged the Labour Court’s direction to pay differential minimum wages to a workman engaged through a contractor, arguing the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to determine disputed wage claims. Held: The Minimum Wages Act provides an exclusive remedy under Section 20 for wage disputes, making the Labour Court’s order under Section 33-C(2) ultra vires [Paras 8-9].

Principal Employer Liability - Contract Labour - The Court held that the Labour Court erred in directing the principal employer to pay differential wages without recourse to the prescribed process under the Minimum Wages Act. The workman must approach authorities under the Minimum Wages Act for such claims [Paras 3-4].

Relief and Directions - The Court set aside the Labour Court’s order, granting liberty to the workman to seek remedies under the Minimum Wages Act, with guidance that time spent in proceedings before the Labour Court and High Court would be considered regarding limitation [Para 9].

Decision: The petitions are allowed, and the Labour Court's order is set aside. The respondent-workmen are directed to pursue remedies under the Minimum Wages Act.
 

Criminal Law - Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Jurisdiction of Magistrate at Post-Cognizance Stage – Complaint Upheld, Further Investigation Denied - The petitioner sought an order directing fresh investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. based on alleged mishandling of the original investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Magistrate treated the protest petition as a complaint after taking cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C., rendering Section 156(3) application non-maintainable – Held: A Magistrate is precluded from ordering further police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. once cognizance has been taken, affirming the approach in Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [Paras 11-12].

Civil vs. Criminal Nature of Dispute – SIT and Final Report Analysis – Civil Dispute Indicated - SIT’s closure report indicated that alleged financial irregularities, including unauthorized loan agreements and undervalued leases, were insufficient to establish criminal intent under IPC sections cited – Concluded that discrepancies primarily pointed to internal company affairs, characterizing the issue as a civil dispute rather than a cognizable offense – Court dismissed petition for fresh investigation [Paras 5-8].

Challenge to SIT’s Final Report – Assessment of Evidence – Deficient Justification for Reinvestigation - Petitioner argued that the SIT failed to investigate misappropriation of lease amounts and unsecured loans in detail – Court held that given the findings of the SIT, the allegations at most involved administrative discrepancies within company transactions without substantiation of criminal conduct – Judicial precedent requires substantial grounds for reopening investigation; no such grounds established [Paras 6-9].

Scope of Magistrate’s Discretion under Section 156(3) – Binding Nature of Precedent - Citing Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, Court reaffirmed the necessity for Magistrate’s judicious discretion in invoking Section 156(3), limited to pre-cognizance phase only – Confirmed that the Magistrate correctly declined to order fresh investigation once he had initiated proceedings on the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10-11].

Final Decision - The petition seeking quashing of SIT’s closure report and orders for further investigation was dismissed as non-maintainable due to the cognizance already taken and lack of substantive criminal findings by SIT.
 

Service Law - Succession Certificate – Legal Heirship – Section 372 of Indian Succession Act – Second Marriage Void – Succession Certificate Granted to First Wife – The applicant, the second wife, contested the succession certificate granted to the respondent, the first wife, regarding the movable properties and family pension of the deceased Gangadhar. The courts below found the second marriage void as it was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage. The court upheld the finding that the respondent is the sole legal heir entitled to the family pension [Paras 1-4, 16-22].

Pension Nomination – Rule 116 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules – Nomination Does Not Confer Legal Heir Status – The applicant claimed entitlement to the pension based on her nomination by the deceased husband. However, the court held that the nomination does not override legal heirship rights and cannot confer a legal status of a wife, especially when the second marriage is void under Hindu law. The court rejected the argument for equal division of the pension between both widows [Paras 10, 21-22].

Equitable Relief – Family Pension for 10 Years Already Received by Second Wife – No Further Pension Entitlement – The applicant had been receiving the family pension for 10 years to the exclusion of the respondent. The court ruled that the second wife, having received benefits unlawfully, was not entitled to further pension and directed the immediate release of the family pension to the first wife with arrears [Paras 30-33, 38-40].

Decision: Civil Revision Application Dismissed – The court upheld the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, confirming the first wife's status as the sole legal heir entitled to receive the family pension [Paras 34-41].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Appellant sought anticipatory bail in connection with allegations under Sections 368, 369, and 370 IPC regarding the abduction and trafficking of minors – Appellant contended that the children were voluntarily handed over to him through a Panchayat decision with formal adoption procedures – Held: The court found that the adoption was done with the consent of the complainant and no prima facie evidence supported the allegations of abduction or trafficking [Paras 14-17].

Delay in Filing Complaint – The court noted a delay of two years in filing the complaint, raising doubts about the genuineness of the allegations – The delay was linked to a potential dispute over the complainant’s intent to sell his late son's property [Paras 19-21].

Adoption Process – The adoption of the complainant’s grandson by the appellant, although not fully compliant with legal formalities, was agreed upon during a Panchayat meeting and witnessed by others, including the complainant himself – The court ruled that this did not constitute criminal intent under Sections 368, 369, or 370 IPC [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The court set aside the order rejecting bail, directing the appellant to surrender and be released on bail with sureties – There was insufficient evidence to justify charges under Sections 368, 369, and 370 IPC [Paras 25-28].

Service Law – Termination of Teachers – Petitioners, employed as teachers in various government schools, were terminated after their educational certificates, particularly B.Ed. degrees, were found to be forged – Petitioners challenged the termination, alleging procedural lapses in the inquiry – Court held that the use of forged certificates for securing public employment amounts to fraud, and such appointments are void ab initio – Protection under Article 311 of the Constitution cannot be claimed in cases of fraudulent appointments [Paras 13-16, 27-31].

Fraudulent Appointments – Ineligibility for Protection – The court held that persons who secured public employment through fraud are not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution – Petitioners failed to prove the authenticity of their B.Ed. degrees, and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act mandates that unqualified persons cannot be appointed as teachers [Paras 21-24, 36-38].

Procedural Safeguards – Departmental Inquiry – Petitioners argued that they were not given a fair chance to defend themselves, and the inquiry process was flawed – Court ruled that even though procedural lapses were alleged, the fact that the petitioners lacked the necessary qualifications for appointment rendered the inquiry irrelevant – Fraud vitiates all actions, and procedural safeguards cannot rescue an appointment secured through deception [Paras 28-33, 42].

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Termination orders upheld as valid – Petitioners, having used forged documents for securing employment, were not entitled to any relief – The appointments were void ab initio, and the challenge to their termination failed [Paras 43-45].

Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance with Court Order – The appellant was held in contempt for failing to pay the revised rent of ₹2 per sq. foot as directed by the court – Appellant argued that the payment of rent was delayed due to ongoing negotiations over municipal tax dues owed by the Satram, which was to be offset against the rent – Court held that while public funds must be conserved, the adjustment of municipal tax dues cannot indefinitely delay compliance with court orders – Conviction under Contempt of Courts Act set aside as there was no deliberate disobedience, and appellant’s conduct was not willfully contemptuous [Paras 10-12, 16-18].

Typographical Error in Court Order – The court clarified that the amendment to calculate rent at ₹2 per sq. foot instead of ₹2 per sq. yard was a correction of a typographical error, which the appellant was required to comply with [Paras 5-7].

Municipal Tax Adjustment – The court acknowledged that the Municipal Corporation's attempt to adjust rent against Satram's tax dues was reasonable, but this did not justify the delay in payment – Directed that if the rent is not adjusted against tax dues within six weeks, the rent should be paid in cash [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction for contempt set aside – Court directed resolution of the rent and tax adjustment issue within six weeks, failing which the rent should be paid in cash to Satram [Paras 19-20].

Service Law - Age Relaxation – Experience as Anganwadi Worker – Validity of Certificates – The respondent, having applied for the post of Supervisor Grade-II (Female), claimed age relaxation based on her experience as an Anganwadi Worker – Her candidature was rejected by DSSSB on the ground of over-age due to conflicting certificates of experience – The Tribunal held that the certificates were valid, as the respondent had worked for both the Department of Women and Child Development and an NGO simultaneously – Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the rejection of her candidature was arbitrary and directed verification of the certificates [Paras 2-4].

Concurrent Employment – No Conflict in Experience – The Court accepted that the respondent’s employment as an Anganwadi Worker did not preclude her from working part-time with an NGO – This concurrent employment did not invalidate her experience as an Anganwadi Worker for the purpose of age relaxation [Para 6].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The Tribunal’s order directing the petitioners to verify the respondent’s Anganwadi Worker certificate and to offer her appointment if found valid was upheld – No interference warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [Paras 8-10].