Civil Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Return of Plaint – Trial Court held after full trial that no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and directed return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Trial Court found that offer, acceptance, payment, and dishonour of cheque occurred at Indore/Pithampur, and not at Malanpur where appellant’s factory was located – Held: Finding that trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction upheld based on evidence showing transaction was centered at Indore and Dhar districts [Paras 9–10].

Civil Procedure – Non-Compliance with Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC – Mandatory Procedure – Despite full trial and appearance of defendant, Trial Court returned plaint without intimating plaintiff or fixing date of appearance in transferee court – Held: Failure to follow mandatory procedure under Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC vitiated the order in part – Order of dismissal of suit unsustainable – Direction issued to Trial Court to return plaint in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC and fix a date for appearance before competent court [Paras 11–16].

Civil Procedure – Suit Dismissed While Returning Plaint – Improper – Trial Court both dismissed the suit and returned the plaint, which is legally contradictory – Held: Where jurisdiction is lacking, suit cannot be dismissed on merits and must be returned for presentation before proper court following due procedure [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Finding on lack of territorial jurisdiction affirmed – Impugned order dated 18.02.2016 set aside to the extent it dismissed the suit – Trial Court directed to return plaint strictly in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC and fix date for appearance before appropriate court – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Reservation Policy – Horizontal Reservation Misapplied Vertically – Invalid Implementation of Ex-Servicemen Quota – Petitioners challenged recruitment to 303 posts of Security Guard (T&S Grade G) in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited – Court found that Ex-Servicemen reservation of 24.5% was applied vertically by adjusting candidates in General category instead of horizontally across all vertical categories – Held: Application of horizontal reservation must cut across SC/ST/OBC/General categories and not disturb overall vertical structure – Misapplication invalidated the recruitment process to that extent [Paras 6–19].

Reservation – Ceiling Limit – Breach of 50% Cap – Ex-Servicemen Quota Pushed Reservation to 74.5% – Petitioners argued inclusion of 24.5% Ex-Servicemen quota resulted in total reservation exceeding 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney – Court held that such reservation, being horizontal, should not have inflated vertical quota – Improper classification and adjustment led to excessive reservation, contrary to constitutional principles [Paras 4(ii), 9–10, 14–16].

Recruitment – Change in Criteria – Post-Advertisement Modification Not Permissible – Ex-Servicemen quota was not clearly mentioned in employment notification dated 19.02.2014 – Applying such quota retrospectively and without proper disclosure in advertisement violates fairness and transparency in recruitment – Held: Selection criteria cannot be altered mid-way unless compliant with law and advertisement terms [Paras 4(i), 20].

Equitable Relief – Regularization – No Displacement of Appointed Candidates – Creation of Supernumerary Posts Directed – Despite flaws in application of reservation, Court declined to displace already appointed Ex-Servicemen candidates – Held: Appointments made in good faith should not be disturbed – Directed reconsideration of petitioners’ candidature in fresh recruitment – Supernumerary posts to be created to absorb both groups without prejudice [Paras 21–27].

Recruitment Process – Judicial Approach – Balancing Legality with Equity – Relying on Ran Vijay Singh, Rajesh Kumar, and Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi, Court held that mistaken appointments should not result in termination if done in good faith – Instead, directed prospective corrective action and seniority protection for rightful candidates [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Selection process to be reviewed – Petitioners to be considered afresh – Existing appointees to retain posts under supernumerary category – Seniority of petitioners to be maintained over them – Entire exercise to be completed expeditiously [Paras 26–30].

Service Law – Retiral Benefits – Teachers of Aided Institutions – Long service with approved appointments and salary payments – Subsequent inquiry following a PIL cast doubts on appointments – Held: Teachers cannot be denied retiral benefits based on belated administrative findings when appointments were previously upheld by High Court – Appointments were approved, and teachers rendered service for decades – State estopped from denying benefits [Paras 4-6, 14, 19, 22-24, 28].

Finality of Litigation – SLP Dismissal – Effect – Earlier judicial decisions upholding appointments attained finality after dismissal of Special Appeal and SLP – Held: Non-speaking dismissal of SLP does not preclude High Court from reviewing later developments, but prior judicial findings on appointments remain binding – Subsequent administrative action cannot override judicial conclusions [Paras 15-17, 21].

Constitutional Law – Article 136 – Scope of Review Post-SLP Dismissal – Held: Dismissal of Special Leave Petition does not amount to affirmation of lower court judgment in absence of a speaking order – Doctrine of merger not applicable – However, prior High Court decision remains binding on administrative authorities unless set aside through review or proper legal process [Paras 16-18, 21].

Equity – Legitimate Expectation – Teachers served for over 25 years – No fault found in appointments attributable to them – Held: They cannot be penalised for alleged lapses of the management – Entitled to gratuity and pension under applicable rules – State derived benefit of their service and cannot now deny benefits [Paras 19-20, 28-29].

Recall Application – Delay and Finality – Recall application filed in 2012 against judgment passed in 1998 and affirmed in 2003 – Rejected as not maintainable – Judgment had attained finality and review was also dismissed – Delay of over 9 years held unjustified and fatal [Paras 32-34].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Single Judge dated 28.04.2025 set aside to the extent it denied retiral benefits – Appellants held entitled to salary arrears and retiral benefits including pension and gratuity – Respondents directed to compute and release benefits within three months – Recall application of Lallan Tiwari dismissed as not maintainable – No order as to costs.

Administrative Law – Blacklisting – Show Cause Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – Petitioner blacklisted and debarred from future tenders for three years and Performance Bank Guarantee forfeited on grounds of supplying non-standard quality drugs – Show cause and hearing notices failed to specify that blacklisting or debarment was proposed – No laboratory test reports or sample analysis data provided to petitioner despite repeated requests – Held: Non-disclosure of proposed action and denial of opportunity to contest findings violated principles of natural justice – Impugned order quashed [Paras 1, 5–7, 13–19].

Tender Contracts – Supply of Medicines – Alleged Breach – Respondents relied on Clause 24(C) of tender terms to impose penalty for supply of non-standard quality drugs and short supply – However, absence of specific mention of blacklist/debarment in notices and non-supply of relevant reports rendered the order legally unsustainable – Existence of penalty clause does not exempt requirement of specific notice for harsh measures like blacklisting [Paras 10, 14–17].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Availability of alternative remedy under Clause 25 of tender terms – Held: Writ maintainable in case of breach of natural justice principles – Availability of statutory appeal not a bar to writ jurisdiction in such cases [Para 20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order of blacklisting and debarment dated 26/09/2025 set aside – Liberty granted to respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner [Paras 19–22].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 302 IPC for allegedly raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl in a secluded area – Trial Court relied on extrajudicial confessions made before a co-villager (P.W.3) and a doctor (P.W.11) and on the appellant’s suspicious conduct at the crime scene – High Court finds that neither P.W.3’s testimony about the confession was reliable nor corroborated by prior police statements or other witnesses – Medical officer (P.W.11) did not record any confession in his report and his oral testimony contradicted documentary evidence – Confessional evidence not put to appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Held: Extrajudicial confession not reliable or admissible to base conviction [Paras 11–12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Guilt Not Proved – Prosecution case entirely based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant’s presence at crime scene explained plausibly and supported by hostile witness (P.W.7) – Forensic reports failed to find blood, semen, or saliva on appellant’s clothes or body – Court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude every hypothesis of innocence – Conviction based on suspicion or conjecture unsustainable in law [Paras 13–15].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Deceased died of asphyxia due to compression of neck, chest, and abdomen – Signs of recent violent sexual intercourse found – Though rape and homicidal death established, identity of perpetrator not conclusively proved [Paras 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction reversed – Deceased was found hanging – Initial police investigation treated death as suicide – Case later altered to homicide based on delayed statements of eyewitnesses – Appellants convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC by Sessions Court – High Court finds that eyewitnesses (PW-6 and PW-10) did not inform police of alleged incident for over two months – Statements recorded only after FIR was filed – Conduct of eyewitnesses deemed unnatural – Serious contradictions and improvements found in their versions of events [Paras 13-20] –

Eyewitness Credibility – Delay in reporting – Both eyewitnesses allegedly saw the incident around 1:30 a.m. but reported it months later – No justification provided for the delay – Presence at scene appears doubtful – Their evidence found unreliable due to variance in narratives, absence of corroborative records (e.g., hotel bill), and inconsistencies with medical evidence [Paras 13-20] –

Medical Evidence – Postmortem findings – Doctor (PW-18) noted ligature mark inconsistent with suicidal hanging – Death opined as homicidal – However, sedative drug (Lorazepam) allegedly used was not detected in postmortem – Prosecution’s claim of sedation unsubstantiated – Thus, medical evidence did not conclusively support prosecution theory [Paras 9, 16, 23] –

Motive – Alleged property dispute involving Rs. 8 lakh between accused and deceased – No documentary proof or witness to transaction produced – PW-5 (wife of deceased) admitted accused and deceased had not been on talking terms for 18 years – Held: Motive unproven and weak [Para 22] –

Confessional Statement – Section 27 Evidence Act – Disclosure made by accused regarding rope and sedative – Rope and tablet recovered – However, recovery not corroborated by forensic evidence linking it to crime – Confession alone insufficient to convict – No direct link to crime established [Paras 12, 23-24] –

Held: Conviction was based on strong suspicion, not legal proof – Sessions Court erred in law by relying on inadmissible and unconvincing evidence – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused acquitted [Paras 30-31] –

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted – Vitthal Dhanwate to be released if not wanted in any other case – Bail bond of Rahul Mahapure cancelled

Partition Suit – Intestate Succession – Christian Law – Oral Family Settlement – Claim Rejected – Plaintiffs and defendant, children of deceased K.M. Marykutty, inherited her property including ‘MGM Lodge’ upon her intestate death – Defendant claimed exclusive right based on alleged oral family settlement and plea of adverse possession – Trial court rejected both claims and decreed ⅓ share to each heir – Held: No documentary or oral evidence to prove family settlement – Mere assertion without corroboration insufficient – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–4, 6–8, 10].

Adverse Possession – Co-Ownership – No Proof of Ouster – Defendant claimed title over inherited property by adverse possession – Held: In case of co-ownership, burden is on party claiming adverse possession to prove ouster of others – Long possession not sufficient – No independent evidence of exclusion of other co-owners – Plea rightly rejected [Paras 9–10].

Oral Family Arrangement – Proof Required – Defendant alleged oral settlement occurred on 40th day after mother’s death – No supporting documents, no examination of independent witnesses, and no mutation or change in title records – Held: Oral family arrangement requires strict proof especially when it alters succession – Evidence wholly lacking – Trial court’s findings upheld [Paras 7–8].

Christian Succession – Equal Share – Application of Indian Succession Act – Parties being Christians, succession governed by Indian Succession Act – On intestate death, children equally inherit – In absence of proof of waiver or relinquishment, each child entitled to equal share – Held: ⅓ share rightly declared for each of the three siblings [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Preliminary decree for partition affirmed – Each party entitled to ⅓ share in plaint schedule property – No interference warranted with trial court’s findings.

Revenue Law – Private Lease under Section 94 – Locus Standi – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner, who was a rival applicant for IOCL dealership, challenged a private lease deed executed under Section 94 by alleging it was contrary to permitted use under the Code – Held: Petitioner is neither lessor nor lessee, nor owner or co-sharer of the land, and thus has no locus standi to seek cancellation of the lease – Mere participation in dealership process does not confer enforceable legal interest in the land [Paras 3, 9–11, 15].

UP Revenue Code – Section 94 – Scope and Applicability – Lease for IOCL Outlet – Lease executed for retail outlet held to be a private lease under Section 94 – Court rejected contention that such lease was void under Section 104 – Held: Section 105(e) specifically excludes leases under Section 94 from consequences of void transfer – Sections 104, 105 and Rule 103 apply only to transfers in violation of Code by bhumidhar involving State land, not private leases [Paras 4–5, 10].

Declaratory Relief – Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code – Interpretation – Court held that only persons claiming to be bhumidhar or asami can file declaratory suits, including suits seeking cancellation of lease – Petitioner having no right, title or interest in the land cannot invoke Section 144 or challenge the lease instrument [Paras 6, 12].

Interpretation of Statutes – Harmonious Reading – Sections 94, 104, 105 and Rule 103 – Court harmoniously construed that lease under Section 94 is governed solely by terms agreed between lessor and lessee – Rule 103 procedures for void transfers not applicable due to statutory exclusion under Section 105(e) [Paras 5, 10].

Procedural Law – Rule 186 – Inapplicability without Locus – Court held that invocation of Rule 186 (regarding non-application of Civil Procedure Code) is irrelevant when the petitioner lacks locus to maintain proceedings against a private lease [Para 16].

Alternative Remedy – Challenge to IOCL Dealership – Court clarified that the petitioner is not without remedy – Any grievance regarding dealership allotment, including lease legality, can be raised before competent forum in IOCL process – But such remedy does not justify locus to cancel private lease deed [Para 14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Impugned orders of Sub-Divisional Officer and Revisional Court upheld – Petitioner found to lack locus standi to challenge private lease deed under Section 94 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 [Paras 17–18].

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of Alleged Original Document – Admissibility Denied – Petitioners sought to lead secondary evidence of a family consent letter allegedly lost or in possession of defendants – Trial Court rejected application under Section 65 Evidence Act for want of foundational facts – Held: Mere assertion of loss and submission of photocopy without showing when, how and by whom it was made from the original does not satisfy requirements under Section 63(2) or (3) – Application rightly rejected [Paras 4–10]

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Foundational Requirements – Not Optional – No pleading regarding how photocopy was obtained, date or process of copying, or comparison with original – Burden lies on party seeking secondary evidence to establish chain of custody, authenticity, and mechanical accuracy – Petitioners failed to discharge this burden [Paras 5, 9, 10]

Precedents – Secondary Evidence – Photocopies Admissible Only Under Strict Conditions – High Court relied on consistent precedents (Makhanlal v. Balaram, Ramrao Karuji Baghale v. Natthu, Anandram v. Gaura Bai, Aneeta Rajpoot v. Saraswati Gupta) holding that photocopies cannot be admitted without fulfilling statutory criteria – Secondary evidence is exception, not rule [Paras 11–12]

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing – Equitable Relief Denied – Petition filed 8 months after rejection of application, and only when matter was fixed for final arguments – Delay undermined bona fides of petitioners – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Para 3]

Constitutional Law – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court reiterates settled law that interference under Article 227 is justified only when there is grave miscarriage of justice – No error found in Trial Court’s view rejecting inadmissible secondary evidence – Petition dismissed [Para 13]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No case made out for interference under Article 227 – Trial Court rightly rejected secondary evidence application due to absence of factual foundation – Petitioners to bear costs.