Criminal Law - Joinder of Additional Accused - Criminal Law – Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 – High Court’s Dismissal of Appeal Challenging Addition of Accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C – Court upheld Trial Court’s Order Adding Accused Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Plea of Alibi Considered and Rejected – Appellant’s Presence and Involvement Established through Multiple Witness Statements and CCTV Footage Identification – No Illegality or Perversity Found in Trial Court’s Order – Appeal Dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Section 319 Cr.P.C – Application and Scope – Supreme Court Guidelines Reiterated – Power to Add Accused should be Exercised Sparingly and with Higher Degree of Satisfaction – Evidence Before Court Must be Strong and Reliable, Leading to Conviction if Unrebutted – Court Emphasized Proper Scrutiny of Evidence before Adding Accused under Section 319. [Paras 7-11]

Plea of Alibi – Burden of Proof – High Threshold Required to Prove Alibi – Evidence must Exclude Possibility of Presence at Crime Scene – Mere Probable Presence Elsewhere Insufficient – Accused’s Alibi Unsupported by Corroborative Evidence, thus Rejected by Court. [Paras 4, 6, 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal is Dismissed Based on Strong Evidence Against Appellant – Eyewitness Testimony and CCTV Identification Corroborated by Multiple Witness Statements – No Fault in Trial Court’s Decision to Add Appellant as Accused – Trial Court’s Order Affirmed. [Para 15]

Arbitration Law – Arbitral Award – Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appellant challenged arbitral award and Section 34 dismissal – Arbitral award partially allowed claims of claimant based on supplementary agreement – Appellant argued supplementary agreement required state approval, was not granted, and breaches were based on it – Arbitrator’s findings on readiness and willingness, delays, and defaults by both parties upheld – Court found no patent illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-33]

Contract Law – Time of Essence – Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act – Arbitral award addressed whether time was essence of contract – Despite contractual stipulation, extended delivery period indicated time not essence – Supplementary agreement signed with mutual consent – Claimant’s failure to act per supplementary agreement noted – No basis to invalidate arbitrator's findings. [Paras 17-19]

Judicial Review – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Jurisdiction under Section 37 does not extend beyond Section 34 limitations – Court emphasized minimal judicial interference – Arbitrator’s construction of contract and evidence upheld unless patently illegal or perverse – Appeal did not meet threshold for interference. [Paras 26-32]

Decision: Held: Appeal dismissed – No interference with arbitral award or Section 34 order warranted – Findings of arbitral tribunal supported by evidence and contractual terms – No patent error or illegality established. [Para 33]

Procedural Law - Counsel's withdrawal and its effect on party representation - Counsel for the plaintiff withdrew without instructions, Trial Court decided case without notifying appellant - Held improper as per Baljit Singh v. Maya Ram [2006(4) RCR Civil 415] - The appellant should have been notified before proceeding in absence of representation - Case remanded to Trial Court for fresh adjudication - Notice to the parties mandatory when counsel withdraws without instructions. [Paras 5-8]

Jurisprudence on non-requirement of substantial questions of law for appeals elaborated in Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs &Ors. v. Chandrika &Ors. [2016 (6) SCC 157] referenced to clarify procedural requirements in the present context. [Para 9]

Decision - Remand of case to Trial Court - Given procedural improprieties and lack of proper notification to appellant following counsel's withdrawal, judgments and decrees of lower courts set aside - Matter remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with legal norms. [Para 10]

Service Law – Pay Revision and Recovery Notice – Petitioner, initially appointed as a daily wager and later receiving a fixed salary, challenged the recovery of alleged excess salary based on audit objections. High Court quashed the impugned order and recovery notice, directing proper pay revision and payment of arrears [Paras 1-12].

Procedure under Articles 14, 16, and 226 – Petitioner’s rights under constitutional provisions were examined, focusing on the due process for salary recovery and pay revision – Court emphasized the importance of following established procedures and providing fair opportunity for representation [Paras 3-10].

Decision – Petition allowed – Held – Impugned order and recovery notice set aside – Respondents directed to revise the petitioner’s pay and disburse arrears in accordance with established procedures [Paras 11-12].

Pension – Counting of Past Service – Petitioners sought direction for pension consideration by counting their services rendered as daily wagers from their initial appointments. The Court held that the past service of daily wagers must be counted for pension benefits, not just from the date of regularization. Petitioners entitled to pensionary benefits considering services prior to regularization [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Precedents – Pension Rights – Various judgments, including Supreme Court rulings, emphasized that pension is a right and not a bounty. Past services of daily wage employees must be considered for pension if they were regularized later [Paras 9(i)-(xii)].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Court directed respondents to count the past services of petitioners for pensionary benefits. The exercise to be completed within twelve weeks. No arrears of salary but past service counted only for pension [Para 10-12].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Petitioner challenged the dismissal of her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by her mother, Smt. Saraswathamma – The suit sought cancellation of gift and partition deeds and declarations against sale deeds executed in 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2010 – Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the issues could only be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial [Paras 1-16].

Limitation – Barred by Time – The suit was filed in 2019, 15 years after the gift deed and more than a decade after the other deeds – Saraswathamma did not plead fraud or undue influence in the execution of the gift deed – Court found the suit was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed well beyond the three-year period allowed for challenging such deeds [Paras 9-14].

Recurring Cause of Action – Trial Court’s reasoning of recurring cause of action due to partition was found untenable – Saraswathamma did not seek partition but only declarations regarding the deeds – Court held that the concept of recurring cause of action did not apply [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint filed by Saraswathamma stands rejected – Civil Revision Petition allowed [Paras 18-19].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner (accused No. 3) sought bail in a case involving allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC, including dowry harassment, assault, and abetment of sexual assault by the father-in-law (accused No. 2) – Petitioner argued false implication, delay in filing FIR, and absence of injuries as reasons for bail [Paras 1-4].

Delay in Lodging FIR and Investigation Status – Incident occurred on 4th February and 9th March 2024, but FIR lodged on 15th March 2024 – Court noted no materials produced by prosecution to support allegations against petitioner – Petitioner, a 51-year-old woman, had been in judicial custody since 16th March 2024 [Paras 3, 6].

Conditions for Bail – Petitioner granted bail with conditions to ensure attendance in court, prevent tampering with evidence, and ensure no commission of similar offences – Bail granted on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions to safeguard against potential flight risk or interference with prosecution witnesses – Directions given to Trial Court for verification of sureties and addresses before accepting the bail bond [Paras 7-7].

Labour Law – Regularization of Service – Petitioners, employed as binders and printers on a piece-rate basis, sought regularization after working for over 22 years – Government rejected their claim citing lack of direct employment records – Petitioners contended employment was continuous despite being through contractors to circumvent direct employment evidence [Paras 1-7].

Evidence of Continuous Employment – Petitioners provided salary and attendance records, inspection reports, and affidavits indicating continuous employment from 2000 to 2023, albeit through different contractors – Government acknowledged petitioners' service but cited a lack of continuous employment between 2011 and 2015 [Paras 8-19].

Supreme Court and High Court Precedents – Petitioners relied on judgments in Nagendra S.G. and Sheo Narain Nagar cases to assert their right to regularization – Court considered the principle of granting monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement from Ranbir Singh case due to the closure of the printing press [Paras 20-33].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Petitioners entitled to monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000 per year of service from 2000 to 2010 and Rs. 50,000 per year from 2016 to 2023 – Compensation to be paid within two months in lieu of reinstatement and regularization, serving as full settlement of all claims [Paras 34-38].
 

Election Law – Disqualification of Candidate – Petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 1 to Biruvalli Gram Panchayat on grounds of disqualification under Section 12(h) of the Act, claiming respondent had a share or interest in work done by the Panchayat – Election Tribunal rejected the petition, leading to this writ petition [Paras 1-2].

Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Section 12(h) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act – Tribunal found no disqualification as respondent No. 1 had no subsisting contract with the Panchayat at the time of election notification – Clarification by Karnataka State Election Commission emphasized disqualification applies only with an existing contract [Paras 3, 8].

Conflict of Interest – Purpose of Disqualification – Court noted the purpose of Section 12(h) is to prevent conflict of interest – Applied purposive interpretation to hold disqualification applies only where there is a subsisting contract, avoiding an unreasonable and absurd consequence of disqualifying any member with past contracts [Paras 18-33].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s interpretation upheld that only a subsisting contract can disqualify a candidate under Section 12(h) of the Act – No interference warranted with the Tribunal’s findings [Paras 34-39].