Civil Law – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Applications Must Be Decided With Appeal – Appellate Court dismissed application for additional evidence and another under Section 151 CPC during pendency of appeal – Held: As per binding precedent of Supreme Court (State of Rajasthan v. T. Sahani and K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy), applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should be considered at the time of final hearing of appeal – Impugned order set aside on this limited ground [Paras 2–6].

Civil Procedure – Application Under Section 151 CPC – Improper Prejudgment – Application filed by defendants/petitioners for summoning death record of respondent/plaintiff decided prior to hearing of main appeal – Held: Application under Section 151 CPC also to be heard together with appeal – Impugned order set aside by consent of both parties, without going into merits [Paras 5–7].

Judicial Discretion – Fair Procedure – Coordinated Bench and Apex Court have consistently held that premature adjudication of applications under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC undermines the appellate process – Both applications restored and to be decided on merits at time of appeal hearing – No adjudication on merits by High Court [Paras 4–7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.10.2022 set aside – First Appellate Court directed to consider application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC (by respondent/plaintiff) and application under Section 151 CPC (by petitioners/defendants) along with main appeal – No opinion expressed on merits of either application.

Service Law – Recruitment – Hindi Teacher (Contractual) – Educational Qualification – Equivalence of “Rastrabhasa Sastri” with Bachelor’s Degree – Eligibility under Resolution dated 27.10.2014 – Respondent applied for the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher under the 2014-15 Advertisement – Collector, Angul rejected candidature citing less than 45% marks in Graduation and lack of training qualification – Single Judge quashed rejection holding “Rastrabhasa Sastri” equivalent to +3/B.A. and directed appointment – Division Bench examined whether Sastri qualification could be treated as equivalent to Graduation [Paras 3.1, 6–7.8].

Equivalence of Degree – Recognition by Competent Authorities – “Rastrabhasa Sastri” from Odisha Rastrabhasa Parisad, Puri – Utkal University Notification dated 28.10.2011 and Government of India letter dated 26.07.1979 recognized “Sastri” as equivalent to B.A. – Supported by previous judgments including Smruti Rekha Mishra v. State of Odisha (2022 (I) ILR-CUT 219), Aparna Sinha v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.10616/2020), and Nihar Ranjan Sarangi v. State of Odisha (WPC (OAC) No.1976/2015) – Held: Marks in Sastri examination must be considered for determining eligibility [Paras 6.1–6.5, 8.1–9.1].

Interpretation – “And” / “Or” in Statutory Clauses – Disjunctive vs. Conjunctive Reading – Clause 3(f) of Resolution dated 27.10.2014 prescribing alternative qualifications for Hindi Teachers – Court held that “Bachelor’s Degree with Hindi” or “Sastri” are alternative conditions – Both need not co-exist – Applying established principles of statutory construction (CIT v. Puthu Thotam Estates, (1981) 127 ITR 481 (Mad); Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, (2023) 11 SCR 731) [Paras 7–7.5].

Untrained Candidates – Eligibility and Appointment – Clause 3(f) of 2014 Resolution – Candidates without training qualification could apply, subject to completing training within the prescribed timeline – Supported by decisions in Satyabrata Nayak v. State of Odisha (WPC (OAC) No.902/2016) and Nihar Ranjan Sarangi (supra) – Respondent eligible for consideration under untrained category [Paras 5.2–5.3, 7.8(iii)].

Precedent – Binding Effect – Consistency in Judicial View – Division Bench relied on the settled judicial interpretation that “Sastri” qualification is equivalent to B.A. – State failed to demonstrate any perversity or distinction in facts warranting interference – Appeal devoid of merit [Paras 9–9.2].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge upheld – Direction for appointment of respondent as Contractual Hindi Teacher sustained – No order as to costs [Para 10].

Family Law – Matrimonial Property – Return of Gold Ornaments – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Wife alleged entrustment of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments to husband as trustee post-marriage – Husband denied, relying on compromise agreement (Ext. A2) admitting only 38½ sovereigns – Held: Ext. A2 genuine and voluntarily executed – Oral evidence and marriage photographs corroborate possession of about 40 sovereigns only – Trial Court erred in granting decree for 75 sovereigns – Modified to 38½ sovereigns – Wife entitled to return of ornaments or equivalent market value [Paras 10–15].

Family Law – Recovery of Money – Entrustment – Oral and documentary evidence (PWs 1–4, Exts. B8 & P9 bank extracts) establish payment of ₹7,00,000 by wife’s father for house construction – Ext. A2 terms corroborate deposit and property transfer obligations – Finding of Family Court upheld; appellant liable to refund ₹7,00,000 with 6% interest [Paras 16–17].

Family Law – Household Articles – Ext. A2 includes clause acknowledging ₹2,00,000 towards furniture and household items – Trial Court rightly decreed recovery; no interference warranted [Para 16].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum – Respondent-wife unemployed; appellant working abroad earning ₹1,00,000 per month – Maintenance of ₹5,000 each for wife and elder child, ₹2,500 each for two younger children upheld – Family Court to reassess when any child attains majority [Paras 18–19].

Evidence – Admissions in Writing – Mediated Settlement – Ext. A2 Agreement signed voluntarily; binding on parties – Absence of duress or coercion established through mediator’s (PW4) testimony – Explanation of “compulsion” rejected as afterthought [Paras 12–13].

Civil Procedure – Appellate Review – Concurrent factual findings based on oral and documentary evidence not disturbed unless perverse – Family Court’s findings on monetary claims sustained; partial interference only as to quantum of gold ornaments [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Matrimonial Appeal No. 1034 of 2016 partly allowed – Decree for return of gold ornaments modified from 75 to 38½ sovereigns or market value equivalent – Other reliefs, including ₹7,00,000 and maintenance, confirmed – Revision Petition (Family Court) No. 37 of 2017 dismissed [Para 19].

Labour Law – Reinstatement – Illegal Termination – Voluntary Resignation Not Proved – Tribunal directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages – Employer challenged award citing alleged resignation and full and final settlement – Held: Photocopies of alleged resignation and cheque were not proved through admissible evidence – Workman denied receiving settlement beyond salary dues – Tribunal rightly rejected employer’s plea and held termination illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of I.D. Act [Paras 5–11].

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – Employer’s Burden to Prove Gainful Employment – Management challenged grant of 50% back wages arguing absence of claim of unemployment by workman – Held: Burden was on employer to prove gainful employment during the period of termination – In absence of such evidence, Tribunal’s award of back wages sustainable – Relief consistent with Hindustan Tin Works and Deepali Gundu Surwase decisions of the Supreme Court [Paras 12–14].

Industrial Law – Demand Notice – Discrepancy in Date of Appointment – Tribunal found actual date of appointment as 05.09.2013 based on management’s own record – Held: Mere discrepancy in dates across multiple demand notices immaterial where employment and termination were otherwise established – Finding of Tribunal affirmed [Para 4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Tribunal’s award of reinstatement with 50% back wages upheld – Management failed to prove resignation or settlement and failed to discharge burden of proving gainful employment – No interference warranted under Article 226.

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Age Determination – Mandatory Compliance – Conviction set aside – Appellant convicted under Sections 448, 323 IPC and Sections 8, 12 of POCSO Act for alleged trespass and sexual assault on a minor girl – No school certificate, birth certificate or ossification test produced as required under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act – Held: Age of victim not proved as per statutory requirements – Conviction under POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 17-20, 26].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Contradictory Statements – Sole Testimony Unreliable – Mother of victim (PW2) and neighbours (PWs 3, 4, 6) turned hostile – Victim (PW1) gave court testimony contradicting original complaint, stating the injury occurred during a public quarrel regarding money – Held: Sole testimony of victim insufficient and unreliable when contradicted by medical and witness evidence [Paras 21-24].

False Implication – Suppression of Counter-Complaint – Misuse of POCSO Act – Accused sustained head injuries during quarrel and lodged complaint against victim’s family – FIR (Ex.D1) against complainant’s family closed after POCSO case was registered – Held: Likely misuse of POCSO Act to neutralize genuine complaint by accused – Courts must remain vigilant to prevent misuse of special legislation [Paras 29-31].

Injury – Section 323 IPC – No Clear Evidence – Acquittal Warranted – Injury to victim found to be simple – No consistent or credible evidence linking it to accused – Held: Conviction under Section 323 IPC not safe – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25, 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under IPC and POCSO Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond cancelled [Para 32].

Motor Accident Claim – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – FIR in the present case was lodged ten days after the accident – Held: Delay in FIR cannot by itself be a ground to reject claim – Human priorities in medical emergencies or last rites are valid reasons for delay – Reliance placed on Ravi v. Badrinarayan (2011) 4 SCC 693 [Paras 7, 10, 15]

Negligence – Eye-witness and Charge Sheet – Evidence of eye-witness (PW-3) established that offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and hit the deceased's motorcycle – Charge sheet filed against driver of the Truck – Driver and owner did not enter witness box to rebut claim – Site plan showing head-on collision cannot override direct oral evidence – Tribunal rightly held driver negligent – Reliance placed on ICICI Lombard v. Rajani Sahoo (2025) 2 SCC 599 and Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497 [Paras 3, 5, 6, 12–14]

Assessment of Compensation – Future Prospects – Tribunal awarded 50% future prospects applying Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules since deceased was aged 38 – Held: Tribunal justified in doing so as the Rule mandates 50% addition for persons below 40 – Rule prevails over Pranay Sethi guideline in the context of U.P. – Reliance placed on New India Assurance Co. v. Urmila Shukla (2021) 20 SCC 800 [Paras 3, 16]

Interest on Future Prospects – Permissible – Tribunal awarded interest on future prospects as well – Contention raised by insurer that such interest is impermissible was rejected – Held: Rule 220-A(6) allows interest on entire compensation amount – Supported by several precedents including Oriental Insurance v. Niru, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1431 – SLP against similar award dismissed by Supreme Court [Paras 17–22]

Evidence Standard – Preponderance of Probabilities – Court reiterated that in motor accident claims, standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Reliance placed on Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi (2023) 13 SCC 510 and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 [Paras 5, 6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Tribunal’s award of ₹18,34,000/- with 7% interest upheld – Direction to refund statutory deposit of ₹25,000/- to Tribunal.

Criminal Law – Cognizance – Quashing of Summoning Order – Dispute Related to Temple Management – Complaint alleged encroachment, criminal intimidation, and physical assault by petitioner due to a temple management dispute – Petitioner’s father had been appointed trustee of Kali Mandir by Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts – Prior civil litigation in favour of petitioner – Petitioner claimed complaint was mala fide, lodged out of vengeance after losing civil dispute – Held: Magistrate failed to consider material background facts and prior civil proceedings while taking cognizance – Allegations general and lacking specificity – Order of cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside [Paras 1–17].

Abuse of Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Apex Court decisions in Paramjeet Batra and Kailashben Patel applied – Criminal proceedings not to be used to settle scores arising from temple trustee appointments – Complaint revealed civil dispute dressed up as criminal allegations without sufficient criminal ingredients – Revisional Court and Magistrate both erred in not examining background circumstances – Magistrate directed to reconsider matter afresh with notice to all parties and full application of judicial mind [Paras 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Magistrate’s Cognizance Order on Remand – Revisional Court had earlier remanded matter for reconsideration due to procedural lapses – Magistrate again took cognizance without addressing civil context or mala fides – Quashing application allowed – Magistrate to issue fresh order after hearing all parties and evaluating complete factual background [Paras 6–9, 16–18].

Decision:

Order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside – Contesting parties directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalsinghsarai – Magistrate to issue notices, apply judicial mind, and pass a fresh order considering all relevant facts and background circumstances – Quashing application disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Maintainability – Applicant filed for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal in complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Held: In view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, complainant in a cheque dishonour case is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC – Such victim has an unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing leave of the High Court – Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 1–5].

Victim’s Right to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – Supreme Court clarified that a complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act case qualifies as a "victim" and thus can file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Requirement of special leave under Section 378(4) does not apply – Reiterated by High Court in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishore, Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs v. Pardeep Sharma, and Raj Kumar v. Rajender [Paras 2–4].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction – Appeal Transferred – Application treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC and directed to be placed before Sessions Judge, Ambala – Registry directed to transmit record and paper-book – Applicant directed to appear before Sessions Court on specified date – No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Application disposed of – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC – Ordered to be transferred to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication in accordance with law – Applicant directed to appear on 14.11.2025 – Registry to transmit complete record.

Cooperative Societies – Maintainability of Dispute – Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act – Allotment of FSI to Member – Tender restricted to society members only – Held: Dispute arises out of membership rights and touches the business of the society – Transaction not commercial in nature nor with outsider – Cooperative Court had jurisdiction [Paras 20–35, 36–43].

Housing Society – Utilization of FSI/TDR – Validity of MoUs – General Body resolution authorized Managing Committee to allot additional FSI – Formation of FSI Sub-Committee lawful – Execution of MoUs under such authority valid – Consideration paid and receipts issued – Subsequent challenge to MoUs unsustainable – Society bound by its resolutions [Paras 44–50].

Development Rights – Change from FSI to TDR – Subsequent resolutions (1991–1997) permitted use of TDR at member’s cost – Society continued to act upon MoUs – Plea that FSI lapsed rejected – Communications from Municipal Corporation do not extinguish rights created under society’s resolutions [Paras 51–56].

Procedural Irregularities and Alleged Collusion – Allegations of fraud, undue haste, and collusion with office bearers not proved – Meetings duly held, resolutions recorded, payments acknowledged – No evidence of misconduct – Findings of Cooperative and Appellate Courts based on proper appreciation of record; not perverse [Paras 57–63].

Judicial Discipline – Status Quo Order – Resolution cancelling MoUs passed in 2003 despite High Court’s interim order of status quo dated 13.01.2003 – Held: Cancellation void ab initio – Resolution passed in defiance of binding judicial direction unenforceable – Cooperative Courts rightly declared it invalid [Paras 64–69].

Equitable Principles – Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation – Member acted on society’s representations, paid consideration, and altered position – Society estopped from denying validity of MoUs or rescinding rights after acceptance of benefit – Agreements binding both in law and equity [Paras 70–76].

Interpretation – “Business of the Society” – Scope under Section 91 – Distinguished Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain (1968), Belganda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (1994 Mh LJ 1756), Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (5) Mh LJ 570) – Held: Unlike cited cases, here the housing society’s bye-laws expressly authorized real estate development – Allotment of FSI/TDR forms part of society’s business – Dispute maintainable before Cooperative Court [Paras 77–84].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Orders of Cooperative and Appellate Courts upheld – MoUs held valid and binding – Society directed to implement awards and effectuate MoUs within three months – No order as to costs [Para 85].