Scheduled Tribe Certificate – Tokre Koli – Pre-Constitutional Documentary Evidence – Interpolation Allegation – Committee’s Order Quashed – Petitioner’s tribe certificate was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground of interpolation in birth registers and school records – Court scrutinized the original records and found no substantial evidence of tampering – Held: Different handwriting and ink do not by themselves prove interpolation – Documents authored by various officers over decades carry probative value – Committee failed to obtain expert opinion or examine custodians of records [Paras 10-14, 17-20]

Scheduled Tribe Claim – Burden of Proof – Section 8 of the 2000 Act – Petitioner submitted consistent caste entries dating back to 1912 describing ancestors as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ – Both terms appear at same serial number in ST list – Held: Burden under Section 8 was discharged – Scrutiny Committee failed to produce any adverse evidence to rebut petitioner’s documents [Paras 18-19]

Tribal Classification – Koli Dhor vs Tokre Koli – Committee rejected claim on grounds of inconsistency – Court followed precedent in Samriddhi Yogesh Savale – Held: Where multiple consistent pre-constitutional entries refer to ‘Dhor Koli’ and post-constitutional to ‘Tokre Koli’, they are to be read as referring to the same ST classification under Entry 28 – Benefit of doubt goes to petitioner [Para 22]

Affinity Test – Evidentiary Value – Committee rejected claim citing failed affinity test – Court reaffirmed that affinity test is not conclusive and must be considered with other probative evidence – Held: Failure of affinity test not fatal where documentary evidence is otherwise strong [Para 23]

Quasi-Judicial Duty – Committee’s Failure to Consider Petitioner’s Reply – No Comparison of Handwriting – No Examination of Custodian Officers – Held: Committee failed to apply mind independently and acted solely on Vigilance Report without verifying facts or following proper procedure [Paras 16-18]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order quashed – Committee directed to issue Scheduled Tribe validity certificate to petitioner within 4 weeks [Para 24]

Civil Law – Gift Deed – Interim Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff executed a registered gift deed in 2015 transferring 2050 sq. yds. of land to the defendant – Later filed suit for declaration claiming gift was void due to non-transfer of possession – Said suit rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation – Plaintiff then filed fresh suit for possession and injunction with interim relief alleging encroachment and construction by defendant – Trial court rejected injunction application for lack of prima facie case – Held: Plaintiff cannot bypass rejection order in declaratory suit by filing fresh suit over same property – Proper course was to seek relief in pending appeal (RFA 341/2024) – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 2.1, 5, 6]

Interim Relief – Status Quo – Suit Property Sub Judice – Trial court refused to grant injunction on ground that ownership of property already under challenge and plaintiff failed to show urgency or irreparable loss – Held: No interference warranted as plaintiff’s title was already rejected in earlier suit and relief ought to have been sought in appeal pending against that order – Injunction rightly denied [Paras 2.3, 5, 6]

Res Judicata / Abuse of Process – Multiple Proceedings – Plaintiff filed successive suits with overlapping claims over same property despite earlier rejection of similar claim – Court held that filing of second suit without awaiting outcome of appeal was inappropriate – Filing fresh suit instead of moving appropriate application in appellate court discouraged [Paras 5, 6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference with order of trial court – Pending applications, if any, stand closed [Para 7]

Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST (POA) Act – Appeal under Section 14A(2) – Alleged offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and BNS 2023 – FIR lodged by complainant alleging caste-based abuse and assault in public view – Appellant contended complaint was result of personal financial dispute and delay in lodging complaint unexplained – FIR filed nearly 2 years after alleged incidents – No prima facie material of abuse in public view – No injury suffered – Vehicle allegedly involved in assault not belonging to appellant – Held: No bar to grant of anticipatory bail under Section 18 of SC/ST Act – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 5, 8–10]

SC/ST Act – Section 18 – Bar on Anticipatory Bail – Scope – Complaint failed to disclose prima facie material showing caste-based abuse in public view – Held: Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act not attracted – Protection of anticipatory bail available [Para 9]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained Delay – Alleged incidents between April 2021 and September 2025 – Complaint filed only on 27.09.2025 – Delay of nearly two years not justified – Material facts not disclosed in initial complaint – Considered as material ground favouring bail [Paras 5, 9]

Bail – Grant of – Conditions Imposed – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and cooperation with investigation – Conditions imposed not to tamper with witnesses or commit similar offences [Para 10]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of trial court dated 29.10.2025 rejecting anticipatory bail set aside – Anticipatory bail granted to appellant subject to conditions.

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Service Permanent Establishment (PE) – Calculation of Threshold Period – Article 5(6)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA – Assessee, a Singapore legal firm, had employees present in India for 120 days – Assessee claimed exclusion of vacation days (36), business development days (35), and common days (5) – Held: To constitute a Service PE, services must be "furnished within" the contracting state. Vacation days where no work is performed, and business development days where no billable services are rendered to clients, must be excluded from the threshold calculation. Excluding these, the period was 84 days, falling below the 90-day threshold. No Service PE constituted. [Paras 38-40]

International Taxation – Virtual Service PE – Interpretation of Treaty – Revenue argued for "Virtual Service PE" due to remote services provided from outside India – Held: The concept of "Virtual Service PE" is not expressly provided in the India-Singapore DTAA. Article 5(6) requires services to be furnished "within" India "through employees present". Courts cannot read new concepts into the treaty which are not explicitly included. Until the treaty is renegotiated to include virtual services, existing provisions must be strictly interpreted. [Paras 42-46, 49]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Questions of law answered in favour of the Assessee. [Para 62]

Arbitration Law – Contract Interpretation – Rebate for Damaged Buses – Petitioner claimed rebate for 966 damaged buses – Held: The contract was for the "fleet" of buses available, not necessarily buses actually plying. Clause 1.1.1 of Schedule-VI specifically stated that 100% of buses may not be on road due to maintenance and no claims could be raised. The Arbitrator's interpretation that no rebate was contractually due is a plausible view and does not warrant interference under Section 34. [Paras 30-33]

Arbitration Law – Public Policy – Interest on Interest – Respondent claimed interest on delayed payment charges – Held: The contract provided for delayed payment charges (which are essentially penal interest). Awarding further 18% interest on these charges amounts to "interest on interest" and is ambiguous/confusing under the contract terms. Such an award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and is set aside. [Paras 44-47]

Contract Law – Penalty vs. Reasonable Compensation – Defacement Charges – Section 74 Contract Act – Respondent claimed penalty of Rs. 1000/day/bus for non-removal of ads – Held: The stipulated amount was a penalty. The Respondent failed to prove actual loss or expenditure incurred for removing advertisements. Awarding the entire penalty amount without proof of loss violates Section 74 of the Contract Act and the ratio in Kailash Nath Associates. Award set aside on this count. [Paras 60-63]

Decision: Petition partly allowed. Award modified: Counter-claims for interest on delayed payments and defacement charges set aside. Award for RTO fees confirmed. Costs reduced. [Para 67]

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act – Reinstatement vs. Lump-sum Compensation – Daily Wager in Irrigation Department – Labour Court granted reinstatement but denied full relief – Employee and State both challenged award – Held: Irrigation Department is an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the ID Act as settled by Supreme Court and Full Bench – State barred from repeatedly raising contrary plea [Paras 9–11].

Evidence – Completion of 240 Days – Burden of Proof – Workman entered witness box and deposed continuous service – Employer failed to produce muster rolls despite directions – Adverse inference rightly drawn against employer – Non-production of best evidence fatal to employer’s case [Paras 12–15].

Section 25B, 25F, 25G & 25H ID Act – Continuous Service – Retrenchment – Violation Established – Once breach of Sections 25G and 25H proved, plea of non-completion of 240 days loses significance – Termination held illegal [Paras 15, 19].

Judicial Review under Articles 226 & 227 – Scope – High Court not to re-appreciate evidence unless perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Labour Court’s findings based on evidence and settled law – No ground for interference in State’s petition [Paras 16, 19].

Parity – Similarly Situated Workmen – Coordinate Bench Decisions – Awards granting only compensation modified to reinstatement with continuity – Orders confirmed by Division Bench in multiple LPAs – Judicial discipline requires similar relief in identical facts [Paras 11–18].

Relief – Reinstatement with Continuity – Back Wages Denied – Labour Court award modified in line with precedent – Employee directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages – Reinstatement to be effected within three months – State’s petition dismissed [Paras 20–22].

Decision:

Employee’s petition allowed – Labour Court award dated 05.01.2022 modified/confirmed to grant reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages – State’s petition dismissed – Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Maintainability under Section 528 BNSS – Chargesheet and Cognizance Not on Record – Application Not Maintainable – Applicant sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC without placing the chargesheet or order of cognizance on record – Held: In absence of both, the application under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is not maintainable – Quashing remedy lies under Article 226 until cognizance is taken – Once cognizance is taken, Section 528 BNSS becomes applicable only if those documents are placed on record [Paras 13, 18]

Criminal Law – Second FIR on Same Allegations – Abuse of Process – Allegation of Fraudulent Sale Deed Based on Forged Power of Attorney – Applicant alleged that second FIR based on same set of facts as earlier FIR (FIR No. 39 of 2022) violates principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – However, Court declined to adjudicate merits in absence of maintainability due to procedural lapse – Observed that merits cannot be examined where application itself is procedurally defective [Paras 2–4, 19]

Forgery and Cheating – Prima Facie Allegations – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Application of Law in Sheila Sebastian and G. Sagar Suri Cases – Applicant relied on Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharraj, (2018) 7 SCC 581 to argue he was not the maker of false document and therefore not liable for forgery – Court declined to evaluate whether ingredients of forgery and cheating were satisfied due to procedural bar [Paras 3, 4, 15–16]

Scope of Inherent Powers – BNSS Section 528 (Old Section 482 CrPC) – Limited to Post-Cognizance Stage – Recent Supreme Court Clarification in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Case – Citing Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025, Supreme Court held that FIR can be quashed under Article 226 before cognizance is taken – After cognizance, quashing under Section 528 BNSS is available only if chargesheet and cognizance order are on record – Applied to dismiss current application [Paras 13, 18]

Judicial Discipline – Full Bench Binding Precedent – No Conflict with Apex Court View – Court considered Full Bench decision in Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P., 1989 APLJ (Cri) 107, and harmonized it with current law – Reiterated that police power to investigate is unfettered and cannot be interfered with under Section 528 unless misuse of power or abuse of process is evident – Quashing of FIR not permissible unless strict procedural compliance is met [Paras 7, 14]

Decision: Application dismissed as not maintainable – Applicant failed to place chargesheet and cognizance order on record – In absence of these, inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC) cannot be invoked – Court declined to examine merits or legality of FIR – Remedy, if any, lies under Article 226 or by filing appropriate application post-cognizance with necessary documents [Paras 18–20]

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Principles – High Court reiterates that interference is permissible only when findings are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or when only one view (guilt) is possible – Double presumption of innocence applies – Trial court’s findings found sound and not perverse [Paras 16–20, 49–51].

FIR – Delay and Suspicious Registration – Material contradictions between FIR version, GD entry (Ex. Ka-26), testimony of informant (P.W.1) and I.O. (P.W.5) regarding where, when and how FIR was lodged – Delay in FIR reaching Magistrate (4 days) and Circle Officer (2 days) further strengthened suspicion – Finding of trial court that FIR timing doubtful upheld [Paras 22–26].

Eyewitness Testimony – Chance Witnesses – P.W.1 (wife) and P.W.2 (son) claimed to witness incident while returning from doctor – Their presence found improbable due to contradictions regarding timings, medical treatment, travel distance, and improbable conduct – Court affirms trial court’s conclusion that both were ‘chance witnesses’ whose presence was not naturally explained [Paras 27–33].

Witness Credibility – Major Contradictions – P.W.1 and P.W.2 contradict each other on: (i) who drove the Bolero, (ii) number of assailants inside vehicle, (iii) manner of attack, (iv) direction of road, (v) presence of mud/grass in mouth, (vi) location of body – Such contradictions strike at core of prosecution case – Trial court rightly held their evidence unreliable [Paras 34–44].

Medical Evidence vs Ocular Evidence – No Crush Injuries – Prosecution alleged Bolero ran over deceased 3–4 times breaking limbs – Postmortem (Ex. Ka-2) showed no crush injuries, no broken limbs; only multiple abrasions/contusions; internal injuries inconsistent with running over by heavy vehicle – Ocular version not corroborated by medical evidence – Creates serious doubt on prosecution story [Paras 45–48].

Two Views Possible – Acquittal Sustained – Trial court’s findings based on reasonable appreciation of evidence; appellate court cannot substitute merely because another view is possible – Appeal dismissed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused affirmed – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Findings consistent with evidence and established principles for appeal against acquittal [Paras 49–51].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Suit by Public Trust – Mandatory Consent Under MPT Act – Plaintiffs’ own pleadings and annexed documents repeatedly describing Defendant as “trustee/permanent trustee/erstwhile trustee” held decisive – Suit for recovery of compensation for misuse of trust property by a trustee falls squarely within Section 50 clauses (a), (e), (f), (p), (q) – Held: Without prior consent of Charity Commissioner under Section 51, suit is statutorily barred [Paras 11–18].

Trust Property – Recovery from Trustee – Section 50 MPT Act – Suit seeks recovery of compensation for occupation of trust property by Defendant during tenure as trustee – Documents (letters, opinions, correspondence) annexed to plaint addressing Defendant as trustee held to override later verbal assertions that he was a “trespasser” – Plaint averments read holistically demonstrate action against trustee for breach/misconduct, not trespass – Section 50 attracted [Paras 10–15].

Trespass Argument Rejected – Plaintiffs’ Case Inconsistent with Record – Plaintiffs’ attempt to classify Defendant as “rank trespasser” held untenable when plaint averments and exhibits consistently acknowledge him as trustee discharging obligations – Once trust itself admits fiduciary capacity, suit cannot be framed as simple trespass to bypass statutory requirement of consent [Paras 14–17].

Scope of Section 51 MPT Act – Consent Mandatory – When suit is of a nature specified under Section 50, plaintiffs must obtain Charity Commissioner’s prior written consent; Commissioner becomes necessary party – Absence of consent renders suit non-maintainable at inception – Bar attracts Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 16–18].

Pleadings Control O7R11(d) – Court Reiterates – For O7R11(d), plaint averments and plaint documents alone are considered – Defence cannot cure statutory bar – Here, plaint itself revealed suit to be one “relating to trustee” requiring consent; absence is fatal [Paras 7–12].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit held not maintainable without prior consent under Sections 50 & 51 MPT Act – Pending Interim Application No. 4005 of 2025 disposed [Paras 19–21].