Labour Law - Majithia Wage Board Classification – Reliance on Wikipedia – Reconsideration Ordered – The petitioner, DB Corp Limited, challenged the Labour Court's classification of the company under Class-I as per the Majithia Wage Board based on gross revenue data sourced from Wikipedia – Held: The Tribunal was forced to rely on Wikipedia as the petitioner failed to submit its balance-sheets or unit-wise revenue data at the Tribunal level – Petitioners later submitted these records before the High Court, showing the average gross revenue was below Rs. 1,000 crores – The classification of DB Corp needs to be reconsidered based on the newly submitted financial data – Matter remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration [Paras 9-10].

Limitation Period – Section 33-C(2), Industrial Disputes Act – No Limitation Period – The petitioners erroneously claimed that the workman’s application for wage recovery was barred by limitation, relying on Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Held: Section 33-C(2) does not prescribe any limitation period, and hence, the limitation period under Section 33-C(1) cannot be imported for applications under Section 33-C(2) or Section 17 of the 1955 Act – The Labour Court correctly rejected the limitation plea [Para 8].

Maintainability of Petition – Findings of Labour Court Upheld – The petitioners' objections to the maintainability of the workman’s application were dismissed by the Labour Court – Held: No infirmity found in the Labour Court's reasoning on maintainability – High Court upholds the Tribunal’s findings on this issue [Para 8].

Decision:

The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

The classification of DB Corp Limited under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations is to be reconsidered by the Industrial Tribunal based on the newly submitted financial documents, including balance-sheets and unit-wise revenue data.

The matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for a fresh determination of the petitioner’s classification in light of the evidence now submitted.

The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 27.09.2024 for further proceedings.

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Prima Facie Marriage Dispute – Necessity to Establish Valid Marriage – The petitioner denied that the opposite party (Respondent No. 2) was his legally married wife and argued that she was his maid. The petitioner claimed to have been married to another woman since 1979 and provided documentary evidence, including a marriage invitation card and family nomination forms. The trial court erroneously concluded that the marriage was undisputed and awarded interim maintenance – Held: The court below must examine the disputed question of whether the opposite party is the petitioner's legally married wife before granting interim maintenance. The impugned order was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Wife Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Legal Definition – Need for Valid Marriage – The term "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C. refers to a legally married wife. In cases where the marriage is seriously disputed, the claimant must prima facie establish the existence of a valid marriage before any maintenance order can be made – Held: Prima facie proof of marriage is required even in summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court must re-examine the issue after allowing both parties to present evidence [Paras 7-9].

Perverse Finding by Lower Court – Misinterpretation of Disputed Marriage – The trial court erred in holding that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was undisputed, despite the petitioner's consistent denial and submission of evidence showing an existing marriage with another woman. This finding was perverse – Held: The trial court's order was based on an erroneous conclusion and was set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Opportunity for Fresh Hearing on Maintenance – Directions to Lower Court – The High Court directed the lower court to rehear the application for interim maintenance, allowing both parties to submit documents and evidence regarding the disputed marriage and other issues. The trial court was instructed to pass a fresh order within eight weeks – Held: The lower court must consider the disputed marital relationship and other issues afresh without being influenced by previous findings [Para 9].

Decision – CRR 2554 of 2019 allowed – The interim maintenance order dated 05.04.2019 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court for a fresh hearing. Consequently, CRR 326 of 2024 was also allowed, and the execution proceeding was quashed [Paras 9-11].

Specific Performance – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Bar of Limitation – The Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement from 1989, cancellation of a sale deed from 2011, and declaration of ownership of the suit property. The defendant filed for rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit was barred by limitation, as the agreement was undated, unstamped, unregistered, and mentioned a mobile number which did not exist in 1989. Held: The suit was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed after 31 years, and the agreement was prima facie fabricated – Application under Order VII Rule 11 allowed – Suit dismissed [Paras 3-4, 7-10].

Declaratory Relief and Specific Performance – Delay in Filing Suit – The plaintiff claimed ownership based on an agreement from 1989 but did not act on it until 2020, even after the original owner’s death in 1996 and subsequent mutation entries. The court held that the plaintiff’s inaction for over three decades and failure to challenge mutation entries was fatal to the claim – The delay indicated the plaintiff's lack of rights over the property, and the suit was barred by limitation [Paras 3.2, 8-9].

Limitation Act – Issue of Limitation as a Mixed Question of Law and Fact – The trial court had refused to dismiss the suit under Order VII Rule 11, holding that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. The High Court rejected this reasoning, stating that when facts are clear and undeniable from the pleadings, the suit can be dismissed at the threshold without leading evidence – Limitation is not always a mixed question of fact and law [Paras 6, 10.1].

Fraudulent Claims and Vexatious Litigation – The court noted that the plaintiff's case appeared to be an attempt to create nuisance and extract concessions from the defendant by reviving a long-dormant and likely fabricated claim – Such vexatious claims must be dismissed at the outset to prevent abuse of the legal process [Paras 10, 10.1].

Agricultural Land Act – Section 43A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 – The suit property was governed by the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, which required permission for sale under Section 43A. The purported 1989 agreement did not mention obtaining such permission, further rendering the agreement invalid [Paras 3.2, 8].

Decision: The impugned order of the trial court dated 10.04.2023 rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 is set aside – The suit is rejected as it is barred by limitation – The Civil Revision Application is allowed [Paras 11-13].

Rejection of Plaint - Partnership Act – Bar on Unregistered Firm Filing Suit – Applicability of Section 69 – Applicant (defendant) contended that the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent (plaintiff) was barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act as the plaintiff firm was not properly registered, and the person filing the suit was not a partner at the time of filing – Court held: Deeds of Reconstitution of the firm (2001, 2020) showed Vishal Kele was inducted as a partner prior to the suit, and the certificate from the Registrar of Firms retroactively confirmed his status as a partner – Hence, there was no bar under Section 69 – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed [Paras 7-10].

Partnership Act – Retroactive Effect of Registration – Validity of Suit – Respondent firm’s registration certificate, showing the name of Vishal Kele as a partner, was updated after filing the suit but with retroactive effect from 2001 – Court noted that the retroactive entry of Kele’s name as a partner in the Register of Firms was valid and did not bar the filing of the suit – Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Gwalior Oil Mills vs. Supreme Industries, the court observed that the firm's registration and the retrospective entry in the Register were sufficient for compliance with Section 69 [Paras 9-10].

Specific Performance Suit – Statutory and Common Law Rights – Section 69 Not a Bar – Even if the registration of the firm were in question, the court cited Supreme Court rulings to hold that suits for enforcing statutory or common law rights, such as specific performance of a contract, are not barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act – The court emphasized that the respondent firm’s suit was for enforcing its business dealings, which was permissible even without strict registration compliance [Paras 11-12].

Rejection of Plaint – Grounds for Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 – The applicant's request for rejection of the plaint on grounds of non-registration of the partnership firm and lack of standing was dismissed – The court found that the grounds raised did not meet the criteria for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and no legal infirmity was found in the lower court’s decision to proceed with the suit [Paras 6, 12].

Decision – Civil Revision Application dismissed – Trial court’s order rejecting the application for rejection of plaint upheld [Para 12].

Appointment of Election Officer – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules – Interpretation and Applicability – The petitioners challenged the removal of the Election Officer (Surja Ram Bishnoi) and the appointment of a new Election Officer (Manju Saharan) under Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules, arguing that Rule 11 applies only to elections under Section 26 of the Act, not Section 13, which governs subsequent elections – Court held: Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules is transitory, intended for the first elections under Section 26, but due to legislative omission (casus omissus), the court read Rule 11 as applicable to elections under Section 13 as well to avoid absurdity – The Registrar's intervention in the election process was valid [Paras 60-101].

Violation of Natural Justice – Non-Issuance of Notice to Election Officer – Rule 11(6) of 2004 Rules – Petitioners argued that the removal of the Election Officer without notice violated natural justice – Court held: Though Rule 11(7) does not explicitly require issuing notice, principles of natural justice should have been followed – Failure to issue notice made the order arbitrary [Paras 69-70].

Public Place for Elections – Definition and Compliance with Rule 11(6) – The respondents alleged that the election venue chosen (Virasat Vidhyapeeth, a private school) was not a public place as required by Rule 11(6) – Court held: A private school can qualify as a public place for election purposes unless there is a concern about transparency – The Registrar could have changed the venue but not removed the Election Officer based on venue concerns alone [Paras 110-115].

Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Filling Legislative Gaps – Rule 11 Applied to Subsequent Elections – Court applied the doctrine of casus omissus, holding that the absence of a provision analogous to Rule 11 for subsequent elections under Section 13 was an inadvertent legislative error – To avoid absurdity and chaos, the court read Rule 11 as applicable to elections under Section 13 [Paras 73-101].

Election Conducted by Both Election Officers – Legality – Elections were held by both the removed and the newly appointed Election Officers, leading to two competing elected bodies – Court held: Both elections were illegal – The earlier Election Officer (Surja Ram Bishnoi) should not have conducted elections after his removal, and the appointment of the new Election Officer (Manju Saharan) was also illegal following the quashing of the impugned order [Paras 122-123].

Decision: Order dated 24.05.2024 quashed – The court declared the removal of the Election Officer and the appointment of a new Election Officer illegal – Both sets of elections conducted by the removed and newly appointed Election Officers were invalid – The court directed fresh elections to be conducted under the supervision of the original Election Officer (Surja Ram Bishnoi) from the stage of filing nominations, with the Registrar appointing a new observer [Paras 120-129].

Preventive Detention – Non-Application of Mind – Failure to Consider Bail Orders – Detention order quashed  - The petitioner was granted bail in all the FIRs mentioned in the detention order, yet the detention order failed to mention the grant of bail – Held: Non-mentioning of bail orders indicates non-application of mind by the detaining authority, thus rendering the detention order invalid [Paras 10-11].

Delay in Passing Detention Order – Absence of Proximate Link with FIRs – The detention order was passed nine months after the registration of the last FIR – Held: Lack of a proximate link between the grounds of detention and the FIRs undermines the legitimacy of the detention order [Paras 13-14].

Failure to Consider Representation – Violation of Constitutional Rights – The petitioner’s representation was not considered by the authorities despite being submitted through proper channels – Held: Non-consideration of the representation constitutes a violation of the constitutional and legal guarantees, further invalidating the detention order [Paras 15-16].

Provision of Grounds of Detention – No Prejudice Caused to Petitioner – The petitioner was provided with the grounds of detention and requisite documents within the statutory period, and he was informed of his right to make a representation – Held: The petitioner’s contention that he was not informed about his rights to make a representation is baseless [Para 14].

Decision: Detention order quashed – The court held that the failure to consider bail orders and the delay in passing the detention order demonstrated non-application of mind – The non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation violated constitutional rights – Accordingly, the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua, is quashed, and the petitioner is to be released from custody unless required in any other case [Paras 17-19].

Application of Section 319 CrPC – Addition of Accused Based on New Evidence – Contradictory Testimony – The petitioner, mother of the deceased, was added as an accused based on new evidence presented during trial under Section 319 CrPC – while earlier witnesses claimed the death was accidental, evidence emerged suggesting the death resulted from manual strangulation – Held: The trial court rightly exercised its discretion under Section 319 CrPC to summon the petitioner as an accused, based on the contradictions in witness testimonies and the postmortem report suggesting manual strangulation [Paras 10-15].

Contradictory Family Testimony – Protection of Accused Family Members – Hostile Witnesses – The family members initially testified that the deceased died from an accidental fall in the bathroom – however, subsequent testimony from P.W.16, a family friend, indicated possible foul play involving the petitioner – the court noted the suspicious protection of family members by hostile witnesses – Held: The court, using its powers under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, interrogated witnesses to establish the truth, supporting the inclusion of the petitioner as an accused [Paras 12-15].

Postmortem Evidence – Cause of Death Contradicts Family’s Narrative – The postmortem report revealed that the deceased had died due to manual strangulation – contradicting the family’s version of an accidental fall – Held: The medical evidence was crucial and consistent with foul play, leading to the petitioner’s addition as an accused [Para 14].

Motive for Murder – Forced Marriage – Love Affair – The prosecution introduced evidence that the deceased had been forced into an unwanted marriage, despite a prior romantic relationship – this served as a potential motive for the petitioner’s involvement in her daughter’s murder – Held: P.W.16’s testimony regarding the deceased’s unhappy marriage was a critical factor in supporting the prosecution’s theory, justifying the petitioner’s summoning as an accused [Paras 10-13].

Section 319 CrPC Invocation – Allowed Even in Advanced Stage of Trial – The petitioner argued that her addition as an accused under Section 319 CrPC was unjustified since the trial was nearing completion – Held: The court ruled that the timing of the invocation of Section 319 was immaterial, provided new evidence emerged justifying the addition of the accused [Para 15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – the court upheld the trial court’s order to summon the petitioner as an accused in the ongoing trial – the case was remanded to the trial court to continue proceedings, with the petitioner granted the right to present her defense [Paras 16].
 

Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty, Adultery, and Desertion – Appellant sought divorce on allegations of cruelty, adultery, and desertion by the respondent – Held: The allegations made by the appellant were vague, unsubstantiated, and lacked specific dates, times, and evidence – The appellant failed to prove cruelty or adultery, and the court found that the respondent was willing to return to the matrimonial home, negating the ground of desertion – Divorce cannot be granted based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations [Paras 14-20, 22-23].

Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Proceedings – Appellant solemnized a second marriage after obtaining an ex parte divorce decree, which was later set aside by the High Court – Held: The appellant's second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage was unjustified, and the allegations of cruelty and desertion were fabricated to justify the second marriage – The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court’s judgment refusing divorce was upheld [Paras 6, 22-23].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition affirmed – The appellant’s allegations were vague and unproven, and the respondent expressed willingness to continue the marriage [Para 24].

Grace Marks in MBBS Examinations – Applicability of New Guidelines – UGMEB Guidelines 2023 Prevail – Grace Marks Denied – Petitioners contended that the previous 2019 regulations allowed for grace marks, which should continue despite new guidelines. Held: The court ruled that the 2023 UGMEB Guidelines, effective from August 2023, which eliminated grace marks, apply to the January 2024 examinations. The 2019 regulations ceased to apply once the new guidelines were promulgated. Grace marks cannot be awarded under the superseded regulations [Paras 15-40].

Examination Standards – Dynamic Evolution of Educational Policies – Petitioners Cannot Demand Continuation of Previous Standards – The court emphasized that students have no vested right in the continuity of examination or evaluation standards existing at the time of their admission. Changes in evaluation methods or the elimination of grace marks, as in the 2023 Guidelines, were deemed necessary for elevating educational standards. The petitioners' argument that older standards should apply was rejected [Paras 33-37].

Challenge to University Ordinance – Validity Upheld – Ordinance Governing Evaluation Process Stands – The petitioners' challenge to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences' Ordinance on revaluation, which followed a dual-evaluation system, was rejected. The court upheld the validity of the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, affirming the university's right to establish its evaluation policies. Multiple prior decisions upholding the same ordinance were cited, and the court refrained from reopening settled issues [Paras 41-50].

Revaluation Requests – Court Cannot Supplant Academic Policy – Petitioners sought further revaluation of their answer scripts. The court held that such matters fall under the purview of the university's academic policy, as already established by its Ordinance, and declined to intervene or issue orders contrary to the procedures laid out in the Ordinance [Paras 52-53].

Decision:

The petitions were dismissed, and the relief sought by the petitioners was denied.