Family Law – Stridhan – Recovery of Gold Ornaments – Marriage Register as Evidence – Entry in SNDP Yogam Marriage Register showing quantity of gold worn by bride – Correction duly countersigned and supported by testimony of Secretary – Genuineness of register not challenged by respondents – Photographic evidence corroborating entry – Held: Bride possessed 800 grams (100 sovereigns) of gold at the time of marriage – Finding of Family Court limiting gold to 600 grams erroneous [Paras 7–9].

Stridhan – Possession and Misappropriation – Appellant admittedly retained about 15 sovereigns – Respondents already directed to return 60 sovereigns – On evidence, respondents likely retained 85 sovereigns – Held: Respondents liable to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments [Para 10].

Recovery of Gold – Mode of Relief – Market Value – When court directs return of gold or its value, prevailing market value at time of realisation to be awarded – However, no enhancement warranted for 60 sovereigns already settled – For remaining 25 sovereigns, market value at time of recovery payable if gold not returned in specie [Para 11].

Recovery of Money – Burden of Proof – Alleged Entrustment by Parents – Claims for Rs.11 lakhs, chit fund amounts, fixed deposit withdrawal, and partnership contribution – Parents not examined – No documentary proof of availability or withdrawal of funds – Bank statements inconsistent with pleaded payments – Amendment raising FD claim introduced belatedly – Held: Monetary claims not proved – Dismissal by Family Court upheld [Paras 12–15].

Chit Fund Amounts – Locus Standi – Claim relating to chits subscribed by petitioner’s mother – Mother neither examined nor claimant – No proof of entrustment for petitioner’s benefit – Held: Petitioner not entitled to decree for amounts allegedly due to mother [Para 16].

Minor Child – Gold Ornaments – Proper Proceedings – Claim for recovery of gold belonging to minor daughter cannot be sought by mother in her personal petition – Remedy lies in instituting proceedings on behalf of minor – Clarified: Dismissal does not bar such future proceedings [Para 17].

Appeal – Remand – Filling Lacunae Impermissible – Prayer for remand to adduce further evidence rejected – Appeal cannot be remanded merely to fill evidentiary gaps or enable production of additional material – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Respondents directed to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which to pay market value at time of recovery – Rest of decree of Family Court upheld – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Adhoc / Work-Charged Service – Counting for Seniority and Pay Fixation – Respondents appointed as Clerks on ad-hoc basis by an authority not competent under the service rules – Posts not advertised and appointments made dehors the rules – Termination later held illegal by Industrial Tribunal with direction of reinstatement and full back wages – Held: Grant of reinstatement with back wages does not automatically confer right to count ad-hoc service for seniority or promotion when initial appointment itself was illegal and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 11–12].

Service Law – Effect of Reinstatement with Full Back Wages – Continuity of Service – Tribunal awarded reinstatement with full back wages but did not grant continuity of service – Courts below erred in presuming deemed continuity merely from reinstatement and back wages – Held: In absence of lawful initial appointment and express grant of continuity, pre-regularisation service cannot be counted for service benefits [Paras 2, 6, 11].

Service Jurisprudence – Illegal Appointment – Distinction between Irregular and Illegal Appointments – Appointment made by incompetent authority without following recruitment rules treated as illegal – Such service cannot be equated with service rendered pursuant to regular appointment – Counting such service would amount to treating unequals equally, offending Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 12–13].

Precedent – Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association Case – Supreme Court reiterated – Only ad-hoc service rendered after appointment in accordance with rules or after consideration of eligible candidates can be counted for seniority – Ad-hoc service rendered through back-door entry excluded [Para 13].

Civil Suit – Declaration – Trial Court and First Appellate Court wrongly decreed suit holding ad-hoc service countable due to reinstatement with back wages – Judgments held contrary to settled law – Interference in second appeal justified [Paras 5–7, 14].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court set aside – Suit of respondents dismissed.

Partition Suit – Execution of Final Decree – Stamp Duty on Instrument of Partition – Objection by Judgment Debtor that final decree was insufficiently stamped as stamp duty was paid only in respect of one share – Contention that decree could not be executed unless stamp duty for entire property was paid – Executing Court held that stamp duty paid by decree-holder was sufficient as all parties had equal shares and one equal share could be treated as separated share under Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act – Challenge thereto in revision [Paras 7–11].

Execution Proceedings – Order XXI CPC – Issuance of Writ of Delivery of Possession – Filing of application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Rejection of recall and stay applications under Section 151 CPC – Revisional challenge confined to executability of decree on ground of stamp duty [Paras 2–4, 9–10].

Stamp Duty – Instrument of Partition – Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act (West Bengal) – Meaning of “largest share remaining” – Where all co-sharers have equal shares, stamp duty equivalent to one such equal share may be treated as separated share – However, final decree in partition must ultimately be duly stamped to be fully executable [Paras 10, 16].

Final Decree – Nature and Executability – Reliance on Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande – Held, until a final decree is drawn up and engrossed on proper stamp papers, there is no executable decree – Mere direction to draw up final decree or partial stamping does not render decree executable in full [Paras 18–19].

Partition Proceedings – Preliminary and Final Decrees – Reference to Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan – Duty of courts to ensure drawing up of final decree after preliminary decree – Decree in partition suit may be partly preliminary and partly final – Suit concludes only upon drawing of final decree [Paras 14–15].

Equitable Relief – Undertaking by Decree Holder – Decree holder undertook before High Court to pay total stamp duty in respect of entire suit property with liberty to recover proportionate shares from other co-sharers – Held, such course would cure defect of executability – Revisional application disposed of granting such liberty [Paras 12–13, 17, 19].

Decision – Civil Revision disposed of – Liberty granted to decree holders to deposit total stamp duty for entire property – On such payment, executing court directed to proceed with execution and ensure full satisfaction of decree within one month – Interim orders vacated [Paras 19–24].

Excise Law – Confiscation of Vehicle – Section 71 Odisha Excise Act – Independent of Criminal Trial – Vehicle seized and confiscated for alleged transportation of 51 litres of illicit NDP IMFL – Confiscation proceedings independent of outcome of criminal trial – Authority empowered to confiscate property if satisfied that offence under the Act has been committed – Criminal adjudication pending no bar to confiscation [Paras 6, 9–10].

Confiscation Proceedings – Satisfaction of Authority – Requirement of Reasoned Finding – Confiscating and appellate authorities failed to record clear satisfaction with reasons to believe that the offending vehicle was used in commission of offence – Mere reliance on seizure report without independent assessment held insufficient – Absence of discussion vitiates confiscation order [Paras 14–15].

Burden of Proof – Owner’s Defence of Lack of Knowledge or Connivance – Under Section 71(5) Odisha Excise Act, burden lies on owner seeking release to prove vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken – However, such burden arises only after authority records foundational satisfaction regarding use of vehicle in commission of offence [Paras 8, 13–14].

Procedural Fairness – Quasi-Judicial Duty of Confiscating Authority – Authorized Officer vested with powers of civil court to summon witnesses, receive evidence and compel production of documents – Failure to examine witnesses and mechanical reliance on investigating officer’s report amounts to denial of effective adjudication – Principles of natural justice emphasized [Para 14].

Mens Rea – Relevance in Confiscation Statutes – Though excise statutes may exclude mens rea by implication, confiscation power must be exercised cautiously – Innocent owner’s claim of lack of knowledge cannot be brushed aside without proper inquiry – Reliance placed on principles laid down by Supreme Court in analogous NDPS confiscation cases [Paras 11–12].

Judicial Review – Remand for Fresh Consideration – High Court refrained from deciding merits of confiscation – Matter remanded to Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing to both sides – Appellate Authority directed to pass reasoned, speaking order in accordance with law [Para 15].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Excise Appeal Case No.31 of 2025 remanded to Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, Cuttack for fresh consideration – Opportunity of hearing to be granted to petitioner and prosecution [Para 15].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession – Permissive Possession – Plaintiffs established title under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) and construction agreement (Ex.A2) – 2nd defendant admitted possession only by permission either from plaintiffs or 1st defendant – Held: Person in permissive possession cannot dispute title of true owner – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration and recovery of possession [Paras 14–18].

Title – Registered Sale Deed – Challenge by Third Party – Property purchased by plaintiffs under Ex.A1 in 2003 – Construction completed in 2005 – 1st defendant did not set up any independent title and remained ex parte – Contention that Managing Director purchased property in individual capacity not substantiated – No evidence to show valid transfer of possessory or proprietary rights in favour of 2nd defendant [Paras 15–17].

Possession – Claim as Security for Loan – 2nd defendant contended that she was inducted into possession as security for loan advanced by her father to 1st defendant – Alleged loan and permissive occupation not proved – Evidence in earlier suit (Ex.B18) shows 1st defendant denied borrowing loan or permitting occupation as security – Defence rejected [Para 17].

Limitation – Suit for Possession Based on Title – 2nd defendant admitted occupation from 2006 – Suit filed within 12 years – Within period prescribed under Limitation Act – Decree not barred by limitation [Para 18].

Mesne Profits / Interim Deposit – During pendency of appeal, appellant directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- per month – Respondents permitted to withdraw amount on proper application before trial Court [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 28.04.2022 in O.S.No.4226 of 2020 confirming declaration of title and recovery of possession upheld – Eight weeks’ time granted to appellant to vacate and hand over vacant possession – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Execution of cheque and receipt of statutory legal notice admitted by accused – Cheque dishonoured with remark “Account Closed” – Statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 attracted – Burden shifted on accused to rebut presumption by raising probable defence – Held: Mere denial or bald assertions insufficient to rebut statutory presumption [Paras 13–15].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Failure to Lead Evidence – Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence – Defence rested solely on statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleging cheque was stolen and absence of liability – No cogent material produced to probabilise defence – Held: Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained unrebutted [Paras 15, 23].

Privity of Contract – Cheque Issued on Behalf of Third Party – Contention that MoU was between complainant and accused’s brother and not accused – Evidence showed accused issued cheque voluntarily towards discharge of liability arising from joint transaction – Cheque admittedly handed over by accused – Held: Issuance of cheque by accused on behalf of brother towards legally enforceable liability sufficient to attract Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–17].

Limitation – Relevant Date under Section 138 NI Act – Argument that underlying MoU dated 2009 rendered claim time-barred rejected – Limitation for Section 138 complaint to be computed from date of issuance and dishonour of cheque, not from date of underlying transaction – Held: Complaint within limitation [Paras 18–19].

Proprietorship of Complainant Firm – Proof Not Mandatory – Cheque issued in favour of proprietary concern – Once cheque drawn in name of firm, complainant not required to separately prove proprietorship in absence of specific dispute affecting issuance – Held: Objection does not go to root of maintainability [Para 20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court well reasoned and based on evidence – Held: No ground for interference under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act and sentence upheld – No perversity or illegality found in concurrent judgments – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – RWA Dispute – FIR lodged by resident against elected office bearers of Resident Welfare Association alleging extortion, intimidation and harassment over parking regulations – Allegations stemmed from enforcement of society resolution regarding parking discipline – Held: Criminal proceedings initiated to browbeat and harass elected RWA members amount to abuse of process of law – Dispute essentially civil/administrative in nature arising out of internal management of society [Paras 36–37].

Extortion – Section 308 BNS – Essential Ingredients – Delivery of Property – Allegation that Rs.500/- penalty was threatened for repeated parking violations – No material to show complainant or any resident was put in fear of injury or dishonestly induced to deliver money – No evidence of actual extraction or delivery of money – Held: Mere threat of penalty pursuant to society resolution does not constitute extortion – Ingredients of Section 308 BNS not satisfied [Paras 29–31].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 351 BNS – Intention to Cause Alarm – Absence of Ingredients – FIR and statements did not disclose any threat intended to cause alarm or compel complainant to do or omit any act unlawfully – Allegations vague and omnibus – Mere warning regarding parking consequences insufficient – Held: No offence of criminal intimidation made out [Paras 33–34].

Intentional Insult – Section 352 BNS – Provocation to Breach of Peace – Not Established – No allegation of intentional insult provoking breach of peace or commission of offence – Enforcement of parking discipline cannot be construed as intentional insult – Ingredients of Section 352 BNS absent [Paras 32–34].

Investigation – Fairness – Half-Baked and Biased Investigation – Investigating Officer failed to examine other residents, verify RWA bye-laws, resolutions or alleged collection of money – Charge-sheet filed solely on statements of informant and accused – Held: Investigation conducted in perfunctory and unfair manner in violation of principles of fair investigation under Article 21 – Serious lapses noted [Paras 35].

Judicial Oversight – Accountability of Investigating Officer – Court directed that adverse remarks be placed in ACR of Investigating Officer and copy of judgment be forwarded to Director General of Police to assess suitability of officer for investigation duties – Emphasis on responsibility accompanying power [Para 35].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Bhajan Lal Principles Applied – Case squarely covered under categories where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute offence and proceedings are actuated by mala fides – Criminal law used as pressure tactic in civil dispute – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 34–37].

Decision: Application allowed – FIR, Charge Sheet No. 01 of 2025 dated 25.07.2025 and summoning order in Case No.115214 of 2025 (State v. Kamal @ Kamlesh Agnihotri & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.392 of 2025 under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, P.S. Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow quashed as abuse of process of law.

Criminal Law – Murder – Road Rage Incident – Sudden Quarrel – Absence of Intention – Incident arose out of a sudden traffic altercation when motorcycle touched car – No prior animosity or premeditation – Assault by fist and leg blows only – No weapon used or recovered – Held: Essential ingredients of intention and knowledge required for offence under Section 302 IPC not made out [Paras 15, 21].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Pre-existing Heart Disease – Causal Link – Post-mortem revealed severe coronary artery disease with 100% blockage of right coronary artery and enlarged heart – Doctor deposed deceased was high-risk cardiac patient and had suffered earlier heart attack – Injuries not opined to be independently sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature – Held: Death could not be attributed solely to assault and medical evidence weakens prosecution’s case under Section 302 IPC [Paras 18–20].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related Witnesses – Doubtful Presence – PW-7 and PW-9 claimed chance presence while proceeding to a baraat and a party respectively – Their natural presence at the spot found improbable – Evidence of related witnesses required cautious scrutiny and corroboration – Held: Eyewitness version insufficient to sustain conviction for murder without strong corroboration [Paras 16].

Section 300 IPC – Clauses ‘Firstly’ and ‘Thirdly’ – Non-applicability – No intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Injuries though serious were inflicted without knowledge of deceased’s cardiac condition – Held: Conviction under Section 302 IPC unsustainable [Paras 21].

Culpable Homicide – Section 304 IPC – Non-attraction – For Section 304 IPC, intention or knowledge of likelihood of death is sine qua non – Appellants had no knowledge of pre-existing heart ailment – Incident occurred in heat of moment without lethal means – Held: Case does not fall under either Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC [Paras 22–24].

Grievous Hurt – Section 320(8) IPC – Hurt Endangering Life – Post-mortem showed subarachnoid haemorrhage, blunt force trauma to head and extensive liver laceration involving about 30% of organ with internal bleeding – Brain and liver being vital organs – Injuries inherently life-endangering – Held: Injuries constitute grievous hurt under Section 320(8) IPC [Paras 26–27].

Alteration of Conviction – Section 302 to Section 325 IPC – Considering nature of injuries, absence of intention, sudden quarrel and medical evidence – Conviction altered from murder to voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Held: Appellants liable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 30].

Sentence – Period Already Undergone – Release Ordered – Appellants had already undergone nearly three years of incarceration – Maximum punishment under Section 325 IPC being seven years – Sentence restricted to period already undergone – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 28–31].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Conviction altered to Section 325/34 IPC – Sentence limited to period already undergone – Appellants ordered to be released – Bail bonds discharged.

Service Law – Pension – Switching from CPF to Pension Scheme – Cut-off Date – Denial of Retrospective Pension – Validity – Retired employees of SIDBI challenged clauses of Circular dated 29.06.2022 granting pension only prospectively from 01.07.2022 to CPF optees and denying arrears prior thereto – Petitioners contended that SIDBI Pension Regulations, 2002 were the only valid regulations and no earlier effective option was given to them to opt for pension – Held: Fixation of cut-off date for grant of pension and refusal to grant pension retrospectively is neither arbitrary nor illegal nor discriminatory – Pension scheme being a policy decision, financial implications and sustainability are relevant considerations – Petitioners having opted for the scheme as a package cannot accept benefits and reject disadvantageous clauses [Paras 16–20].

Service Jurisprudence – Pension Scheme as a Package – Doctrine of “No Picking and Choosing” – Pension option extended as a final opportunity subject to specific terms – Petitioners exercised option to switch from CPF to pension – Held: Employees cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting benefits of scheme while challenging conditions forming integral part thereof – Once option exercised, scheme must be accepted in entirety [Paras 14, 17, 20].

Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Decision – RBI v. M.T. Mani – Clauses impugned were materially identical to clauses upheld by Supreme Court in RBI v. M.T. Mani – Supreme Court held that denial of retrospective pension prior to cut-off date does not violate Articles 14 or 16 – High Court bound by ratio and applied same to SIDBI pension scheme – Distinction sought on ground of lack of prior options rejected [Paras 16–19].

Policy Decision – Financial Burden – Judicial Restraint – SIDBI pension option resulted in financial burden of approx. ₹96 crores; retrospective arrears would impose additional burden of ₹19.67 crores for petitioners alone – Held: Courts should not interfere with economic and policy decisions taken after considering financial viability – Retrospective pension would lead to financially unsustainable consequences [Paras 17–18].

Delay and Double Benefit – CPF and Pension – Petitioners had enjoyed CPF benefits and income for several years – Grant of retrospective pension would amount to unjust enrichment and double benefit – Reliance placed on Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar – Held: No prejudice caused to petitioners by denial of retrospective pension [Paras 11, 21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Clauses 3(VIII) and 4(IX) of Circular dated 29 June 2022 upheld – No order as to costs.