Labour Law – Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) – Applicability of Central vs. State Law – Cement industry dispute – Appellant, UltraTech Cement Ltd., contended that the Central Government's Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (CG Act) governed the industry – Appellant argued cement is a controlled industry under the Central Government and thus, should not be subjected to the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (M.P. Act) – State of Madhya Pradesh enacted the M.P. Act increasing the retirement age from 58 to 60 years – The Industrial Court upheld the M.P. Act's application, which was challenged by the appellant – Held: The State Government has authority due to delegation of powers by the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act) and the industries in Madhya Pradesh, including cement, are governed by the M.P. Act regarding employment conditions including retirement age [Paras 12-16, 20].

Collective Agreements – Settlement under Industrial Disputes Act – Appellant argued that a bipartite settlement had been reached with the workers' union fixing the retirement age at 58 years, and the demand for increasing the retirement age to 60 years was not agreed upon – However, the settlement was challenged, and the workers demanded adherence to the statutory increase in retirement age under the M.P. Act – Court found that statutory provisions under the M.P. Act, which are more beneficial to workers, override collective settlements – Held: The retirement age of 60 years under the M.P. Act is enforceable despite contrary settlement agreements [Paras 17-18].

Retirement Age – Statutory vs. Contractual Provisions – The appellant contended that the Vikram Cement Limestone Mines, a part of the cement plant, should not be governed under the same laws as the factory, as they fall under the Mines Act and Factories Act – The court held that despite these distinctions, the retirement age for cement workers is governed by the M.P. Act, which provides for a retirement age of 60 years for workers in the state – Held: The M.P. Act applies uniformly to both mine and factory workers in this context [Paras 19-20].

Back Wages – Workmen who retired at the age of 58 under the prior agreement challenged the Industrial Court's award, which granted them only 50% of their two-year salary as back wages – The court held that since the workmen were entitled to continue their employment until 60 years, they should be awarded full back wages – Held: Workmen entitled to 100% of two years' salary, and related writ petitions allowed [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal in Writ Appeal No. 1167/2019 dismissed – Orders of the Industrial Court upheld – Writ petitions challenging the award on the retirement age dismissed.

Workmen awarded full back wages in related petitions – Appellant directed to comply with the revised retirement age of 60 years under the M.P. Act [Para 21].

Customs Act – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissal of Bail Applications – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC for alleged involvement in smuggling gold under the Customs Act, 1962 – Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a smuggling gang and seized gold and foreign currency worth Rs. 2.60 crore – Petitioners argued DRI had no jurisdiction to investigate, citing prior animosity – Prosecution countered that Section 3 of the Act, amended by the Finance Act 2022, confers investigative powers on DRI – Court found the investigation crucial and held that anticipatory bail was premature – Bail applications dismissed with the observation that any arrest would require the DRI to substantiate belief of the petitioners’ involvement in offences under Sections 135, 135A, 136, and 137 of the Act [Paras 1-7, 16].

Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) – Investigative Powers – Petitioners contended that DRI lacked authority to investigate under the Customs Act – Court rejected the argument, referring to the amended Section 3 of the Customs Act (via Finance Act, 2022) and notification dated 31.03.2022, which grants DRI officers powers equivalent to Customs officers – Held: DRI officers are competent to issue notices under Section 108 of the Act and to summon the petitioners for recording statements [Paras 9-11].

Statement Under Section 108 of the Customs Act – No Pre-arrest Bail – Court reiterated legal precedents, including Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [(2008) 13 SCC 305], which clarified that Section 108 statements differ from police statements under CrPC – The petitioners, summoned for recording statements under Section 108, cannot seek anticipatory bail at this stage as it obstructs the investigative process – Precedents also indicate that anticipatory bail is premature when summons for statements are issued under this section [Paras 12-14].

Customs Act – Precedents on Investigative Powers – Referred to various rulings by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such as Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 940] and Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramachandani v. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani [2022 KHC Online 8031], affirming that Customs authorities can investigate and that anticipatory bail cannot obstruct statutory powers [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Observed that arrest, if conducted, must follow the competent authority’s belief of the petitioners' involvement in offences under Sections 135, 135A, 136, and 137 of the Customs Act [Paras 16].

PIL – Environmental Law - Office Memorandum – Post Facto CRZ Clearance – Incompatibility with CRZ Notification, 2019 – The petitioners challenged the validity of the Office Memorandum dated 19th February 2021, which allowed post facto clearance for projects in CRZ areas without prior clearance as required by law. The impugned Office Memorandum was found to be in conflict with the statutory CRZ Notification, 2019, which mandates prior clearance for all projects – Held: The Office Memorandum is non-statutory and cannot override or supplant the CRZ Notification, 2019, which was issued under the statutory powers of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The memorandum was quashed for being ultra vires [Paras 19-22, 48].

Administrative Circulars vs. Statutory Notifications – Hierarchy of Laws – The Court emphasized that executive instructions, such as the impugned Office Memorandum, cannot override statutory provisions. The impugned memorandum, which allowed post facto clearances, was not issued in compliance with the statutory procedure under Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, nor was it consistent with the statutory requirements of CRZ Notification, 2019 – Held: Administrative orders cannot supplant statutory provisions. The impugned Office Memorandum was legally impermissible and invalid [Paras 30-38].

Post Facto Clearances – Environmental Jurisprudence – Contradiction with Supreme Court Rulings – The Union of India relied on past judicial precedents to justify post facto clearance, citing Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and other judgments. However, the Court clarified that these judgments did not endorse post facto clearances in contravention of statutory provisions like the CRZ Notification, 2019 – Held: The impugned memorandum violated established principles of environmental jurisprudence, including the precautionary principle and sustainable development. Post facto clearances were not permissible under the CRZ Notification, 2019 [Paras 23-25, 39-45].

Supersession of CRZ Notification, 2011 by CRZ Notification, 2019 – Legal Implications – The Court held that the CRZ Notification, 2019 superseded the earlier 2011 notification, making any reference to the CRZ Notification, 2011 in the Office Memorandum irrelevant. The supersession obliterated the legal standing of the 2011 notification and its provisions, including post facto clearances – Held: The Office Memorandum's reliance on the superseded CRZ Notification, 2011 was legally flawed [Paras 26-29, 47].

Decision: The impugned Office Memorandum dated 19th February 2021, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, was quashed as being in contravention of the CRZ Notification, 2019. Applications for CRZ clearance from the interveners, including the State of Nagaland and M/s. Patel and Associates, were directed to be processed by the competent authority on their merits as per applicable law. [Paras 48-50].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The appellants were convicted based on a dying declaration – The court found several inconsistencies and procedural lapses in recording the dying declaration, including the absence of certification of the victim's mental fitness by a doctor and a lack of preliminary questions to assess the victim’s condition – Moreover, key witnesses such as the attending doctor and an important family member were not examined – The court concluded that the dying declaration was unreliable, and acquitted the appellants of all charges [Paras 30-50].

Dowry Death – Demand of Dowry – Sections 498A IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act – Conviction Overturned – The prosecution failed to prove continuous dowry demand or harassment, as key witnesses, including the victim’s family members, did not support the prosecution's case – The court noted contradictions in witness testimonies and absence of corroborating evidence regarding dowry demands, leading to the acquittal of all accused [Paras 42-49].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – The court found that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Important witnesses were not examined, and the reliability of the sole dying declaration was questionable – The benefit of doubt was given to the appellants, resulting in their acquittal [Paras 49-50].

Decision: The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and their conviction and sentence were set aside. The appellants were ordered to be released from custody immediately.

Service Law – Pension Eligibility – Petitioner's claim to join the pension scheme under the Allahabad Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, was denied by the respondent bank citing non-compliance with the stipulated timeframe for exercising the option under the Circular dated 15.09.2010 – Petitioner was removed from service in 1999, but the punishment was quashed, and he was deemed to have superannuated in 2010 – High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to exercise the pension option as the delay in exercising the option was due to circumstances beyond his control – Held: Denial of pension option was illogical and irrational; impugned order set aside, and matter remitted to the bank for reconsideration [Paras 2, 8.4, 8.9, 11.2, 12].

Doctrine of Impossibility – Petitioner could not comply with the 60-day deadline to opt for the pension scheme as he was removed from service and fighting legal battles from 1999 to 2016 – High Court invoked the principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law does not compel impossibility), holding that the petitioner could not be penalized for failing to act during his removal from service – Held: Petitioner should have been allowed to exercise the option once the punishment was quashed [Paras 8.14, 8.15, 9, 11.1].

Quashment of Punishment – Petitioner’s removal from service was quashed by the Court in 2015, and the bank’s appeals up to the Supreme Court were dismissed – Petitioner was deemed to have superannuated on 31.08.2010 – High Court directed the bank to extend all consequential service benefits, including the pension option under the Allahabad Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 [Paras 2.3, 2.5, 9.2, 11.2].

Finality of Proceedings – The petitioner’s legal challenge against the disciplinary proceedings concluded with the dismissal of the bank's Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court in 2016 – Following this, the bank’s refusal to extend pension benefits was inconsistent with prior judicial directives – Held: Petitioner entitled to all service benefits, including pension, treating him in continuous service [Paras 2.6, 9.2, 11.2].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order of 28.09.2020 set aside – Bank directed to reconsider petitioner’s claim to join the pension scheme within three months, complying with the Allahabad Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 [Paras 12, 12.1].

Civil Law – Probate of Will – Two competing Wills – Probate granted in favor of respondent based on 1993 Will – Trial court dismissed claim on 1995 Will – Appellants challenged the genuineness of the 1993 Will, alleging suspicious circumstances, including mention of deceased wife who was alive at the time of the Will's execution – Held: The 1993 Will was suspicious due to discrepancies, and the probate granted in favor of the respondent is set aside – Appellants’ claim regarding the 1995 Will was also rejected for lack of credibility [Paras 1-4, 35-56].

Proof of Will – Execution and Attestation – Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Respondent proved the execution of the 1993 Will through attesting witnesses – However, the court found suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including false statements about the wife’s death, leading to doubts about the testator’s true intention – A mere compliance with legal requirements is insufficient where suspicion exists – The court must be satisfied that the Will truly reflects the testator's intentions [Paras 22-31, 57].

Suspicious Circumstances – Mention of Wife’s Death – The 1993 Will stated that the testator’s wife was dead, although she was alive at the time of its execution – No provisions were made for the wife in the Will – This inconsistency raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the Will – The court held that such unexplained abnormalities indicated that the Will was not a genuine document, even though it was attested by witnesses [Paras 34-37, 52-55].

Revocation of Earlier Will – 1995 Will – Appellant’s claim of a 1995 Will revoking the 1993 Will was rejected by the trial court – Evidence provided by the appellants, including testimonies and documents, failed to substantiate the revocation or cancellation of the earlier Will – The court agreed with the trial court’s decision that the 1995 Will was not credible, pointing out discrepancies in the signatures and overwriting in the document [Paras 9, 39-47].

Decision: Appeal F.A. No. 185 of 2015 allowed – Probate granted in favor of the respondent for the 1993 Will is set aside due to suspicious circumstances – Appeal F.A.T. No. 302 of 2015 dismissed – 1995 Will also held not genuine – Appellants’ applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC rejected – Trial court judgments modified accordingly [Paras 58-59].

Service Law – APAR Downgradation – Bias Allegations – Petitioner, serving as Second in Command (2-I/C) in CRPF, challenged the adverse remarks and downgradation of his APAR from "Very Good" to "Good" for the period 01.04.2018 to 29.10.2018 – Contended that the downgrade was due to bias and vindictive attitude of his Commandant (respondent no. 4) after petitioner refused to participate in illegal activities – Court noted inconsistencies in the APAR with contradictions between positive appraisals and adverse remarks – Held: Adverse remarks and downgradation made without objective reasoning and were likely biased [Paras 22, 29, 31, 39, 43].

Procedural Compliance – Supervisory Period for APAR – Petitioner argued that the Reporting Officer lacked authority to record the APAR since he had not worked under him for the mandatory period of three months – Court found that while leave days should be deducted, the petitioner had worked under the Reporting Officer for sufficient time after leave adjustment, but the grading lacked objectivity and fairness – Held: APAR recorded without due diligence [Paras 24, 30, 39].

Bias in APAR – Petitioner alleged bias due to previous conflicts with respondent no. 4, including false advisories and malicious downgrading – Court held that the cumulative pattern of prior "Very Good"/"Outstanding" APARs and a sudden downgrade in a short period supported reasonable apprehension of bias – APAR found inconsistent and motivated by personal vendetta – Held: APAR quashed due to bias and lack of objective assessment [Paras 41, 43].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned APAR and orders rejecting representation set aside – Adverse remarks and downgradation for the period from 01.04.2018 to 29.10.2018 quashed – Respondents directed not to rely on the impugned APAR for any future assessments of the petitioner [Paras 43, 44].

Contract Law – Bank Guarantee – Defective Invocation – Appeal Dismissal – Appellant, GAIL India Ltd., sought recovery of the amount under a performance bank guarantee (BG) from Respondent No. 1, UCO Bank, after alleging that Respondent No. 2 (Harisons Industries) failed to extend the BG – Single Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, as the invocation of the BG by the appellant did not comply with the contractual terms – The High Court held that the invocation letter did not mention any breach of contract by Respondent No. 2, which was a pre-condition for invoking the BG under Clauses 1 and 3 of the BG agreement – Appellant's claim that the BG was unconditional was rejected by the court, as the terms clearly linked BG payments to contractual defaults [Paras 7, 17, 18, 21].

Bank Guarantee – Conditional vs. Unconditional Guarantees – Appellant argued that the BG was payable "on demand" under Clause 6, thus suggesting unconditional payment – Court ruled that Clause 6 had to be read alongside Clauses 1 and 3, which required a contractual breach for invocation – Reliance placed on Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court held that a BG invocation must strictly comply with the terms specified in the BG contract – The court found that since no default by Respondent No. 2 was stated in the invocation letter, the invocation was invalid [Paras 18, 20, 21].

Invalid Invocation – No Cause of Action – Appellant's plaint was dismissed as it failed to disclose a cause of action – Court noted that the plaint did not allege any contractual breach by Respondent No. 2, focusing solely on the assumption that the BG was unconditional – Therefore, no cause of action arose for the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, justifying the rejection [Paras 22, 23].

Procedural Law – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Appellant contended that the rejection of the plaint based on the invalidity of the invocation letter went beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 – Court disagreed, holding that the invocation letter's compliance with BG terms was crucial to deciding the maintainability of the suit – The court referred to a prior order that had raised doubts on the invocation’s validity and found the rejection under Order VII Rule 11 to be appropriate [Paras 10, 24, 27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court upheld the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No merit in appellant's argument that non-extension of the BG itself constituted a default – No breach of contract or payment default by Respondent No. 2 was alleged, making the invocation invalid – All pending applications were disposed of [Paras 30, 31].

Full Tank Level Dispute – Extent of FTL – Petitioners' objections regarding Durgam Cheruvu tank’s FTL not considered – Directions for Reconsideration – The petitioners argued that the FTL determined by the respondents exceeded the original extent of Acs. 65.12 Guntas, encroaching on their private property – Held: The Lake Protection Committee was directed to hear the petitioners’ objections and decide the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu through a speaking order – No demolition of the petitioners’ constructions until the FTL determination is finalized [Paras 1-6].

Administrative Law – Right to Hearing – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners entitled to a personal hearing before Lake Protection Committee – Petitioners had submitted objections within the prescribed time limit but were not considered – Held: The Lake Protection Committee must provide the petitioners with a personal hearing and finalize the FTL notification after considering the objections [Paras 10-12].

Land Rights – Private Property – Article 300-A Constitution of India – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners’ claim of interference with peaceful possession – Petitioners' properties were alleged to fall under the extended FTL area – Held: The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession until the FTL is determined [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Remedy – No Final Relief Granted – Pending Decision by Committee – The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims as the matter was left to be adjudicated by the Lake Protection Committee – Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Committee [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the Lake Protection Committee to hear the petitioners' objections and notify the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu within six weeks. No demolition of the petitioners' constructions will take place until the FTL is determined.