Violation of Natural Justice – Reversion from IG to DIG without a proper hearing – Petitioners reverted as per orders dated 31.03.2023 without being given a subsequent opportunity for a hearing after initial postponement – Initial show cause notice dated 17.09.2021 followed by multiple notices and a scheduled hearing which was postponed due to non-availability of the Chief Minister – Respondents failed to reschedule the hearing and instead issued final reversion orders – Held, impugned orders set aside due to a violation of natural justice principles, directed to pass new orders after a proper hearing by 15.06.2024 – [Paras 1-9].

Contractual Disputes – Withholding of Payment – Dispute arose over withholding of Rs. 1,40,42,000/- payment due to allegations of data breach by the respondent – Appellant cited contractual provisions permitting withholding payment for default – Held, withholding payment pending investigation justified under terms of agreement [Paras 1-7, 10-11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise in Contractual Matters – High Court emphasized limited scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes – Held, writ jurisdiction not appropriate where arbitration clause exists and parties have alternate remedy – Reference to Apex Court rulings on writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes [Paras 8-9].

Arbitration Clause – Dispute Resolution – Agreement contained arbitration clause for dispute resolution – High Court directed parties to resolve dispute through arbitration, setting aside writ court’s order for immediate payment – Emphasized need for arbitration as per contract terms [Para 11].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Parties directed to resolve dispute through arbitration as per agreement terms – No costs [Para 12].

Service Law - Regularization of Service – Food Corporation of India – Appeal against regularization order – Petitioner employed since 1986 on various temporary and contingent bases, performing duties without full-time status or proper pay scale – Single Judge directed regularization as Safaiwala/housekeeping staff from 06.09.2002, with all benefits – Appellant’s contentions regarding lack of full-time status and post for regularization rejected by court due to long-term service extraction and significant duties performed by respondent [Paras 2-20].

Employment Law – Requirement for Regularization – Qualifications and Age – Court dismisses Corporation’s argument against regularization based on respondent’s age and educational qualifications (only completed 5^th standard) – Regulations allow age relaxation and do not require high qualifications for the respondent’s role – Court criticizes Corporation for not acting sooner and for ignoring previous court mandates and government policy directives on regularization [Paras 13-19].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court’s decision. The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s service merited regularization based on her substantial and sustained contributions to the respondent corporation. The court noted the lack of justification for opposing regularization and mandated compliance with regularization norms to uphold the dignity and rights of long-serving employees [Para 22].

Arbitration Law – Jurisdiction under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain applications for extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal – Applications under Section 29A seeking extension of time to pass award filed before High Court – Preliminary objection raised by non-applicants regarding maintainability before High Court instead of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in district – High Court’s interpretation of “Court” as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act – Held: High Court not vested with original jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) for domestic arbitration cases where arbitral tribunal not appointed by High Court or Supreme Court – Applications dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate forum [Paras 1-36].

Jurisdiction – Interpretation of “Court” under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A application for extension of mandate of arbitral tribunal – Analysis of case law: M/s. K.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Nilesh Ramanabhai Patel vs. Bhanubhai Ramanbhai Patel, Cabra Instalaciones Y. Servicios vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, DDA vs. M/s. Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co., M/s. URC Construction (Private) Ltd. vs. M/s. BEML Ltd. – Emphasis on High Court’s and Supreme Court’s role in appointing arbitrators under Section 11 – High Court’s jurisdiction to extend mandate only when it initially appointed arbitrator under Section 11 – Definition of “Court” in Section 2(1)(e) is binding unless context otherwise requires [Paras 7-34].

Decision – Dismissal of Arbitration Applications – Held – High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 29A in domestic arbitration cases where it did not appoint the arbitral tribunal – Applications dismissed with no order as to costs – Applicants advised to approach appropriate forum [Paras 35-36].

Cooperative Societies – Test Audit Appointment – Quasi-Judicial vs. Administrative Orders – Revisions: The High Court examined whether the order appointing a special auditor under Section 81(3)© of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was quasi-judicial or administrative, and whether such an order could be challenged under Section 154 of the said Act. The court held that the order under Section 81(3)© is administrative in nature, primarily directed at the supervision of society’s affairs without deciding on the substantive rights of parties. Consequently, it was concluded that a revision under Section 154 of the Act challenging the administrative order is not maintainable. [Paras 1-34]

Nature of Order – Quasi-Judicial vs. Administrative – Analysis: The court outlined the distinctions between quasi-judicial and administrative orders, emphasizing the necessity of a quasi-judicial body to act judicially, provide parties the opportunity to present their cases, and make decisions based on objective considerations. In this case, the order appointing a special auditor did not require such judicial conduct, hence classified as administrative. [Paras 23-31]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations: The court elaborated on the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, highlighting that it pertains to quasi-judicial orders. The examination of ‘regularity of proceedings’ cannot extend to quashing or setting aside administrative orders but is confined to ensuring the legality and propriety of quasi-judicial decisions. [Paras 7-22, 32]

Decision: The impugned stay order by respondent No. 2 was set aside, and it was clarified that respondent No. 6 may challenge the initial order appointing the special auditor through appropriate legal proceedings if desired. [Para 33]

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner accused of conspiracy under Sections 341, 307, 120B read with Section 34 IPC – Incident occurred on 11.03.2023 near Saibaba Temple, Anantapuramu, involving physical assault by unidentified assailants – Petitioner’s involvement cited as conspiratorial without direct participation in the assault – Bail granted considering petitioner’s severe physical disability and low likelihood of interfering with the investigation [Para 1-7].

Physical Disability Consideration – Petitioner with 90% disability including impaired mobility and grip – Court considers inability to interfere with investigation due to physical condition – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions of surrender, executing a personal bond, and appearing before the investigation officer as required [Para 7].

Investigation Oversights – Mention of unsubstantiated involvement of petitioner in official remand report noted – Incorrect statements in remand report acknowledged by court without further action on investigating officer – Highlights issues in prosecution’s case against petitioner [Para 6].

Decision: Granting of Anticipatory Bail – Court grants anticipatory bail to petitioner on executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two like sureties – Directed to surrender within two weeks and cooperate with ongoing investigation [Para 7-8].

Family Law – Maintenance – Enhancement and Cancellation – Criminal Revision against Family Court order –

Maintenance to Wife and Son – Section 125 of Cr.P.C. – Challenge by Husband – Allegation of Suppression of Employment – Wife employed in private service earning Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month – Family Court rejected husband’s application for cancellation of maintenance – Held: Mere employment of wife does not disentitle her to maintenance – Maintenance awarded earlier was insufficient considering current cost of living – Trial court’s order enhancing maintenance justified – No perversity in impugned judgment – Revision application dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Maintenance – Enhancement under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. – Application by Wife – Increase in Cost of Living – Wife and son required more funds for sustenance and education – Trial Court enhanced maintenance – Contention that wife suppressed income rejected – Employment and earnings of wife do not bar her right to maintenance – Husband’s financial capacity considered – Enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 3,500 per month justified – Revision dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000. [Paras 2-13]

Income and Employment – Relevance in Maintenance Claims – Evidence Act – Consideration of Financial Status – Court’s Role – Income of parties assessed – Evidence of employment and salary considered – Applicant husband’s claim of being economically poor not substantiated – Respondent wife’s financial need and son’s educational expenses recognized – Maintenance amount fixed considering all circumstances. [Paras 9-12]

Decision – Maintenance Enhanced – Revision Application Dismissed – Costs Imposed – The Court found no merit in the revision application – Upheld Family Court’s decision – Directed payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs to respondents – Imposition of 9% p.a. interest on arrears justified to expedite maintenance payments. [Para 13]

Arbitration Law – Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Dispute over service contract and recovery of dues – High Court dismissed the application for lack of formal notice invoking arbitration – Requirements under the contract for arbitration notice not fulfilled by the applicant [Paras 1, 7-10].

Contractual Obligations – Requirements for initiating arbitration under the contract – Discussion on the necessity of a formal notice as per the contract terms before invoking arbitration – Emphasis on compliance with the contractual procedure for dispute resolution before seeking judicial intervention [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Legal Procedure – Importance of following contractual dispute resolution mechanisms – High Court emphasizes adherence to the precise terms of the contract regarding dispute notices and initiation of arbitration – Application dismissed due to procedural non-compliance by the applicant [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Decision – Dismissal of Arbitration Application – Held – The application for arbitration is dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the procedural requirements stipulated in the contract for initiating arbitration, specifically the absence of a formal notice invoking arbitration clause post-dispute notice period [Para 10].

Civil Procedure – Return of Unmarked Documents – Dispute on Impounding Documents for Insufficiency of Stamp Duty and Registration – The petitioner, after the dismissal of her suit for a permanent injunction (O.S.No.181 of 2024), sought the return of unmarked documents which the trial court refused due to insufficiency of stamp duty and lack of registration. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh examined precedents governing the return and impounding of such documents. [Paras 1-3, 18-19].

Legal Principles – Impounding of Documents – Application of Stamp and Registration Acts – The court reviewed various judgments to determine if unmarked, improperly stamped, or unregistered documents could be returned to the parties without impounding. It was concluded that documents not tendered in evidence could not be impounded and should be returned, as their impounding only arises at the stage of marking documents as exhibits during trial. [Paras 5-17].

Decision – Allowing the Civil Revision Petition – Held: The Court directed the return of the documents listed in I.A.No.704 of 2023 to the petitioner, overruling the trial court’s decision. This decision was supported by a conjoint reading of Sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act and relevant case law indicating that the duty to impound arises only when documents are tendered in evidence. [Paras 18-20].