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]

Service Law – Leave Encashment – Dismissal from Service – Petitioner dismissed from service on account of criminal conviction – Claim for leave encashment rejected by competent authority under Rule 8.21 Punjab Civil Services Rules – Held: Dismissed employee not entitled to leave encashment [Paras 1-2, 7-8].

Service Rules – Punjab Civil Services Rules – Rule 8.21 and Rule 3.17-A(1)(ix) – Leave encashment payable only on retirement and not on dismissal by way of punishment – Dismissal entails forfeiture of past service – Benefit of leave encashment impermissible once service stands forfeited [Paras 6-7].

Precedent – Per Incuriam Decision – Reliance on Dhir Chand v. State of Haryana – Held: Judgment in Dhir Chand rendered per incuriam as relevant rules and Full Bench review order were not brought to notice – Subsequent binding decisions in Ram Kumar Ranga, Balwinder Singh, Harbans Lal and Rajesh Bhalla followed [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Discipline – Coordinate Bench Decisions – Later and reasoned coordinate bench judgments interpreting service rules to prevail over earlier decision rendered without considering binding instructions – Principle of per incuriam applied [Paras 6-7].

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Leave encashment as property – Held: Subject to statutory rules – Where rules expressly deny entitlement on dismissal, Article 300-A not attracted [Paras 6-7].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Mandamus – In absence of statutory entitlement, writ of mandamus for payment of leave encashment cannot be issued – Rejection order upheld [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 20.02.2023 rejecting claim for leave encashment upheld – Petitioner held not entitled to leave encashment after dismissal from service – No order as to costs.

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]

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.

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]

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]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Corruption/Misappropriation of Public Funds – MGNREGA Scheme – Petitioners (vendors) accused of conspiring with officials to divert funds meant for chicken coops, wells, and cattle sheds by falsifying records – Total misappropriation approx. Rs. 2 Crores – Held: In serious offences involving corruption and misappropriation of public funds, anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail and recover misappropriated amounts. Granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the investigation. [Paras 33-34]

Criminal Law – Re-transfer of Misappropriated Money – Effect on Bail – One accused argued he re-transferred money to the prime accused, showing bonafides – Held: Re-transferring money to the prime accused indicates continuation of the conspiracy and sharing of proceeds, rather than innocence. It is an aggravating factor. [Para 31]

Decision: Bail applications dismissed. Petitioners directed to surrender. [Para 35]

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].