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].

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].

Criminal Law - Externment Proceedings – Scope of Judicial Review – Section 47 of Delhi Police Act – The petitioner challenged an externment order issued under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act for involvement in bootlegging and other criminal activities. The court observed that externment is not a punitive measure but preventive, aimed at ensuring public safety. Judicial review of such orders is limited to checking whether they are illegal, irrational, or procedurally improper – Held: Externment order valid, no procedural impropriety found [Paras 9-11, 15-16].

Habitual Offender – Interpretation of 'Habitually' – Explanation to Section 47 – The petitioner argued that her involvement in isolated FIRs over consecutive years did not satisfy the requirement of habitual criminal activity. The court held that 'habitual' under the Act does not require offenses within one year but refers to repeated engagement in illegal activities over time. The externment order was upheld as the petitioner was found to be involved in multiple FIRs across several years [Paras 14-16].

Public Safety – Witnesses Unwilling to Testify – In Camera Evidence – The court noted that witnesses were unwilling to testify in public due to fear of retaliation, which justified the use of in-camera evidence. The petitioner's criminal activities, including bootlegging, were found to be hazardous to the community, warranting externment [Paras 5, 13-14].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – The court found no merit in the petition and upheld the externment order, noting that a compassionate view had already been taken by reducing the period from two years to one year [Paras 16-17].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction Upheld – The accused issued a cheque for ₹150,000 in partial discharge of liability towards the complainant for goods supplied. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds, and the accused failed to make payment despite receiving a notice of demand. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicted the accused. The revision petition was filed against the concurrent findings of the lower courts – Held: The cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. Conviction upheld [Paras 18-25].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope for Interference – The High Court reiterated that in revision, interference is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or gross misapplication of law. As both the lower courts correctly applied the presumption under Section 139 NI Act and the petitioner failed to lead any evidence to rebut it, there was no ground for interference in the revision petition [Paras 10-12, 25-27].

Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Burden of Proof on Accused – The issuance of the cheque was admitted by the accused, and under Section 139 NI Act, a presumption arises that the cheque was issued for the discharge of legal liability. The accused failed to lead any evidence to rebut this presumption, and mere denial in the statement under Section 313 CrPC is insufficient to displace the statutory presumption [Paras 19-22, 28-30].

Decision:

Revision petition dismissed – Conviction and sentence of six months' simple imprisonment and ₹200,000 compensation upheld.

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].

Arbitral Proceedings – Judicial Interference – Scope of Article 227 – The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution in arbitral matters. Interference is permissible only in cases of "exceptional rarity," "exceptional circumstances," or "extreme perversity." Here, the petition challenged an interlocutory arbitral order allowing interrogatories and discovery of documents – Held: The court found no exceptional circumstance justifying interference [Paras 7, 44].

Interrogatories – Relevance to Arbitral Dispute – The arbitral tribunal had allowed interrogatories related to unsold plots within a project. The petitioner argued these were beyond the terms of the contract. The court rejected this, holding that the interrogatories were relevant to the subject matter of the dispute and necessary for fair adjudication – Held: The interrogatories were properly allowed [Paras 22-26, 34-37].

Discovery of Documents – Arbitration – Limited Scope of Challenge – The petitioner argued that the discovery of certain documents exceeded the terms of the agreement. The court, however, upheld the arbitral tribunal's direction for production of documents, stating that such evidence was crucial to resolving the dispute about the availability of plots – Held: The order for document production was valid [Paras 24-25, 39].

Specific Performance – Frustration of Contract – Alternate Reliefs – The seller (petitioner) contended that the agreements were frustrated due to non-acquisition of land by the government. The buyer (respondent) sought specific performance or alternate relief of similarly situated plots. The court noted that the arbitral tribunal was competent to consider these issues and the tribunal’s interlocutory orders did not overreach its jurisdiction – Held: No jurisdictional error by the arbitrator [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Petitions Dismissed – The court found no merit in the petitioner’s challenge under Article 227 and dismissed the petitions [Paras 45-46].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing his mother-in-law during a quarrel related to his wife's pregnancy – Defense argued that the attack was a result of sudden provocation and there was no premeditation – Court reclassified the offense as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, noting that the act was committed in the heat of passion without intention to kill [Paras 13-16, 21-23].

Presence of Provocation – Appellant's quarrel with the deceased over her interference in his marital dispute was deemed to have led to the fatal attack – Court found that there was no malicious intent or premeditation to commit murder, and the attack was a result of emotional outburst due to grave provocation [Paras 18-20].

Sentencing – The appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was reduced to Section 304 Part I IPC – Court imposed a sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000, with a default sentence of 3 months' simple imprisonment – Conviction under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to the appellant's wife was upheld [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for the culpable homicide and conviction under Section 324 IPC maintained [Paras 27-28].

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Internal Disputes Between Private Clubs – Article 226 Not Applicable - The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman of the HCA, asserting that the dispute involved inter se issues between private clubs. The Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for disputes concerning private clubs governed by the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. The role of the Ombudsman is akin to that of an arbitrator in such disputes, and recourse must be sought through civil courts [Paras 12-13, 16-18].

Delay and Laches – Petitioner’s Long Silence – Bar to Relief - The Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches, observing that the petitioner had remained silent for nearly 13 years before making a claim in 2024. The Court relied on precedents where a delay in asserting rights led to the dismissal of claims, reinforcing that equity does not favor those who sleep over their rights [Paras 22-23].

Res Judicata – Effect of Previous Orders – No Grounds for Reconsideration - The petitioner’s claim was further weakened by the fact that earlier orders of the Ombudsman (2018) had attained finality, which restrained the petitioner from representing the Nalgonda District Cricket Association. The Ethics Officer and Ombudsman were correct in relying on these unchallenged orders, and the petitioner's attempt to unsettle these established facts was rejected [Paras 21, 29-31].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference with Ombudsman’s Order - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Ombudsman’s decision that recognized the 2nd respondent as the legitimate representative of the Nalgonda District Cricket Association. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims of fraud or violation of procedural fairness [Paras 32-33].
 

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].