Probate – Validity of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Will Upheld – Appellant-objector (son of testator) challenged probate granted to respondent no. 1 alleging that the testator had already sold the property via documents dated 30.04.1998 – Trial court found Will dated 14.09.1998 valid and genuine – Appellant failed to prove due execution or consideration of sale documents – Held: Execution of registered Will proved through attesting witnesses – No concrete suspicious circumstances established – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6-8, 10-14, 19-24]

Indian Succession Act – Burden of Proof – Attesting Witnesses – Proof of Will – Petitioner examined two attesting witnesses and official from Sub-Registrar’s office – Will was registered and read over to the testator in his vernacular – Testator was in sound mind – Held: Statutory requirements of Section 63 of ISA and Section 68 of Evidence Act fulfilled – No material infirmity found in witness testimony to invalidate Will [Paras 10-12]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 53-A – Protection of Possession – Claim Rejected – Appellant relied on agreement to sell, power of attorney, and other documents dated 30.04.1998 – Admitted no registered sale deed and no proof of payment of ₹1,00,000 consideration – Held: Unregistered sale documents confer no title – No right to prevent testator from executing Will – Appellant failed to establish claim under Section 53-A TPA [Paras 6, 23]

Family Dispute – Disinheritance – Testamentary Intention – Evidence showed strained relations between testator and appellant – Testator disowned appellant in the Will, citing reasons such as misconduct, refusal to pay maintenance, and legal harassment – Held: Will reflected clear, conscious intent to exclude appellant – Presence of family discord did not create suspicious circumstance – Supported by mother and sister of appellant who raised no objection [Paras 11, 24]

Suspicious Circumstances – Mere Presence of Beneficiary – Inconsistent Witness Statements – Held: Mere presence of beneficiary during execution or registration of Will not suspicious per se – Inconsistencies in witness deposition regarding mode of travel and drafting sequence immaterial – Appellant failed to plead or prove undue influence or coercion – Burden not discharged [Paras 19, 22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment granting probate upheld – No infirmity found in trial court's findings – Pending applications closed [Paras 25, 26]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Disqualification of Member of Parliament – Effect of Stay of Conviction – Petitioner sought Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 1 (Rahul Gandhi) on the ground of disqualification under Article 102 r/w Section 8(3) of the RP Act due to conviction in a defamation case – Held: Once the conviction is stayed by the Appellate Court (Supreme Court in this case), the disqualification arising out of such conviction ceases to operate from the date of the stay order. The conviction becomes non-operative, and the bar under Section 8(3) does not apply during the pendency of the appeal. – Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Election Law – Disqualification upon Conviction – Distinction between Stay of Sentence and Stay of Conviction – Held: There is a fundamental distinction between the stay of execution of sentence and the stay of conviction. Mere stay of sentence/bail does not wipe out the disqualification. However, when the conviction itself is stayed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 389 CrPC or inherent powers, the disqualification is kept in abeyance and the individual is not debarred from holding public office. [Para 13]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. [Para 20]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Attempt to Murder – Petitioner-husband sought quashing of Sessions Case No.20 of 2024 under Sections 324, 326, 307 IPC on the basis of compromise deed with wife (Respondent No.3), the complainant – Allegations related to physical assault with knife – Chargesheet filed, but during trial parties amicably settled the matter through mediation and executed compromise on 11.08.2025 – Held: Though offence under Section 307 IPC is serious and non-compoundable, Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC where parties settle disputes of personal nature voluntarily – No public interest involved – Allegations arose from domestic quarrel with no premeditated intent – Proceedings quashed to secure ends of justice and restore peace between spouses [Paras 2–4, 7–11].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Offences of personal nature – Reliance placed on Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 10 SCC 303 and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. (2025) 4 SCC 78 – Court noted that many domestic disputes are wrongly escalated under Section 307 IPC – In the present case, compromise was genuine, voluntary and aimed at rebuilding marital relationship – Continuation of proceedings would be counterproductive – Held: High Court's inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure justice [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Sessions Case No. 20 of 2024 under Sections 324/326/307 IPC pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Shillong, quashed – Criminal petition allowed [Paras 12–13].

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.

Civil Law  – Commercial Suit – Admissions – Plaintiff MSME filed suit seeking ₹16.77 crores towards unpaid invoices for school bags supplied to Defendant No.1 under a Government tender – Defendant No.1 admitted outstanding amount in its written statement and ledger filed in related proceedings – Defendant’s defence of profit-sharing arrangement and contingent liability on Government payments found baseless – Held: Clear, unambiguous admission of liability in pleadings and documents satisfies requirements under Order XIII-A and Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Decree passed for ₹16,77,73,384/- without trial [Paras 1, 15–20, 32–38, 51–52].

Contract Law – Buyer-Seller Relationship – Back-to-Back Payment Defence – Defendant claimed payments were to be made only after receiving funds from Government departments – No written agreement establishing such arrangement – Tripartite Escrow Agreement and invoices establish principal-to-principal buyer-seller relationship – Held: Defendant liable to plaintiff irrespective of third-party payments – Plaintiff not party to Government tender or contract [Paras 43–50].

Commercial Law – Escrow Agreement – Ledger Entries – GST – Defendant’s own ledger showed outstanding dues to plaintiff – GST paid by plaintiff availed by defendant as input credit – Defendant admitted all 147 invoices in affidavit – Held: Financial records and admissions amount to acknowledgement of liability – Escrow agreement served to protect plaintiff’s interest and does not make payment conditional [Paras 34–41, 47–48].

Decision: Application under Order XIII-A allowed – Suit decreed for ₹16,77,73,384/- in favour of plaintiff against Defendant No.1 – Suit to continue for remaining reliefs [Paras 51–54].

Education Law – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Appellant challenged Director's order rejecting claim for promotion to 7th post of Lecturer in Physics – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition holding that statutory remedy under Section 24-B of Odisha Education Act was available before the Tribunal – Held: Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving eligibility and entitlement linked with grant-in-aid – Writ Court rightly declined to entertain the writ petition in light of specific statutory forum [Paras 1-6, 18-22]

Statutory Interpretation – Scope of Section 24-B of the O.E. Act – Dispute whether Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined only to “grant-in-aid” or extends to eligibility and entitlement for post approval and salary – Held: Legislative intent behind insertion of Section 24-B makes it clear that Tribunal’s power includes disputes concerning approval of posts, eligibility of appointment, and salary where such claims are related to grant-in-aid – Punctuation such as commas not decisive in interpreting statutory scope – Interpretation must serve purpose of amendment [Paras 7-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Statutory Remedy – Although High Court’s power under Article 226 is not ousted, writ jurisdiction may not be exercised where efficacious alternative remedy exists – Appellant previously approached Tribunal and cannot bypass it now – Forum shopping deprecated – Tribunal is competent forum to adjudicate disputes arising from administrative directions on post approval and salary [Paras 19-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error in learned Single Judge’s order relegating appellant to Odisha Education Tribunal – Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate challenge to rejection order dated 27.03.2025.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Rape – Conviction Set Aside – Accused convicted for offences under Sections 366A and 376 IPC for allegedly enticing and raping a 16-year-old girl – Victim voluntarily accompanied accused to Kanchipuram on pretext of marriage – No evidence of inducement or threat – Medical reports confirmed absence of physical injuries or recent intercourse – Held: Prosecution failed to prove offence under Section 366A or rape under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 17–21].

Criminal Law – Consent and Age – Applicability of Pre-Amendment Law – Offence occurred on 31.05.2011 – Victim was 16 years, 2 months, and 18 days old – As per unamended law, consent above 16 years relevant – Application of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 to incident predating its enforcement held impermissible – Retrospective application of stricter penal provision violates Article 20(1) of Constitution – Conviction under amended standards illegal [Paras 11, 25–30].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 114A – Not Applicable – Section 114A applies only to charges under Section 376(2) IPC – No such charge framed against accused – No presumption of lack of consent could be drawn – Victim’s testimony lacked corroboration – Medical evidence confirmed absence of force – Held: Burden remained on prosecution, not discharged [Paras 22–23].

Judicial Interpretation – Doctrine of Non-Retrospectivity – Trial court erroneously applied post-2013 rape law to offence committed in 2011 – Bar under Article 20(1) of Constitution is absolute – Law cannot impose enhanced punishment retrospectively – Conviction and sentence contrary to binding constitutional protections – Acquittal warranted [Paras 25–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 366A and 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bond cancelled – Trial court directed to comply – Judgment to be circulated among judiciary and prosecution for strict adherence.

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from raising construction on agricultural land allegedly belonging to his ancestors – Claimed defendants obtained revenue entries fraudulently during consolidation – Courts below rejected injunction holding no prima facie title established and possession with defendants – Held: In absence of conclusive documents and pending challenge before Consolidation Officer, no prima facie case made out – Interlocutory relief rightly denied [Paras 1–7, 13–14]

Land Law – Consolidation Proceedings – Revenue Entries – Plaintiff challenged validity of consolidation allotment and mutation in separate proceedings – Until such challenge is resolved, existing entries hold the field – Courts held that long-standing entries in Jamabandi and possession support respondents – Mere allegation of forgery insufficient to disturb settled possession at interim stage [Paras 5, 8, 14–15]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Plaintiff failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in concurrent findings – High Court held that re-appreciation of facts not permissible in revision under Section 115 CPC – No ground for interference made out [Paras 16–17]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No merit in challenge to concurrent orders rejecting temporary injunction – All pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of [Paras 17–18]

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].