(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 250 - Discharge application - Prima facie case - Offences of cheating and forgery - Accused had allegedly undertaken construction illegally, by relying upon a plan that was interpolated and forged copy of original approved plan - Denying assertion of accused that IO never recovered or produced original plan said to have been forged, charges were framed by Magistrate - Accused filed writ petition challenging FIR and charge sheet, however it was held that sufficient prima facie material existed to sustain the charge - Accused nevertheless filed second writ petition, again challenging orders framing charge on identical ground of absence of original plan and was discharged - Once earlier order denying discharge had attained finality without further challenge, it was not open to accused to mount a fresh, materially identical challenge before same court against subsequently - Absence of original plan was a factor related to sufficiency of evidence at trial and would not act as automatic bar to prosecution - Subsequent Court order discharging accused was set aside - Matter was restored before Magistrate. (Para 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S. 7, S.13(2) - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Illegal gratification - Demand and acceptance - Proof - Allegation that accused had demanded bribe from informant for purpose of mutation of property of his brother in favour of his legal heirs - Both witnesses had deposed that money was neither paid by informant to accused nor recovered from possession of accused in their presence - Official witness stated that money allegedly paid by informant, to accused was not in his presence because at that point of time, he had come out of office - According to him, none from raiding party saw any demand nor acceptance of the bribe money - There were discrepancies in evidence tendered - No one saw informant handing over the bribe money to the accused nor acceptance of the same by the accused - Neither demand nor acceptance of bribe was proved - Conviction and sentence was set aside. (Para 19,19.1, 20, 21, 22)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.7, S.13(1)(d) - Illegal gratification - Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant - Is the sine qua non to establish the guilt of the public servant under Ss. 7 and 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the PC Act - Offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction. (Para 14.2)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166(1) - Claim petition - Territorial jurisdiction - Right of insurer to take objection - In claim petition u/S. 166(1), it is not mandatory for claimant to implead insurer as defendant - Claimant has choice regarding same - However, if claimant impleads insurer as party to claim petition, insurer would be free to contest proceedings on all permissible grounds, without any restriction - Held, insurer on being impleaded as defendant by claimant can raise objection to territorial jurisdiction of Tribunal. (Para 6)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 20 - Claim petition - Territorial jurisdiction - Explained. (Para .)

(C) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166(2) - Claim petition - Whether insurer is defendant - Explained. (Para .)

(D) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 21 - Claim petition - Territorial jurisdiction - Objection by insurer - Claimant himself impleaded insurer as party to claim application and it raised objection to territorial jurisdiction before Tribunal itself - As claim petition awaited adjudication by Tribunal on merits, requirements of S. 166(2) have to be satisfied and S. 21(1) of Code was not attracted. (Para .)

(E) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Claim petition - Territorial jurisdiction - Claimant resided at Chittoor in A.P. as pleaded - There was no averment in claim petition stating that claimant carries on business elsewhere - Even driver of offending vehicle was stated to reside in District Chittoor - Accident occurred in Tirupati - Claim petition was filed before Tribunal at Chennai - Plea that insurer had its business also at Chennai, therefore Tribunal at Chennai had jurisdiction to entertain claim petition - However, place where insurer carries on business had been specifically omitted in S. 166(2) while specifying territorial jurisdiction of Tribunal - No part of cause of action arose within local limits of District Chennai so as to clothe Tribunal with territorial jurisdiction - Error was committed by Tribunal at Chennai in holding that it had territorial jurisdiction which was rightly corrected by High Court. (Para 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.32 - Recruitment - Selection - Post of Technician Grade-II (Trainee) Electrical - Unsuccessful candidates challenged selection, claiming to be higher in merit than selected candidates, and sought fresh selection and CBI investigation - No challenge to alleged irregularities or discrepancies in revised merit list having been raised - Respondents' stand that petitioners had not secured prescribed cut-off marks remaining uncontroverted, and no less-meritorious candidate having been selected - Selected candidates having been appointed long back and serving for considerable period, their appointments could not be disturbed in their absence - CBI investigation not warranted in absence of FIR or allegations against local police - No ground for interference with selection. (Para 18, 20, 22, 23, 24)

(A) M. P. Land Revenue Code (20 of 1959), S. 146 - Demand notice - Challenge against - Petitioner had preferred appeal against demand notice which was pending from May, 2026 - Petitioner had made prayer for direction to Additional Commissioner to take up matter and decide pending appeal within time bound period - State had no objection to such limited prayer of petitioner - Accordingly, direction was issued to concerned authority to take up matter and decide statutory appeal expeditiously within 45 days. (Para 5)

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 6 - Aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Written complaint was filed on basis of letter allegedly authored by survivor aged about 13 years addressed to her grandmother - In said letter, survivor had stated that she was sexually assaulted by her uncle but name of uncle was not mentioned - There was clear dichotomy between evidence of survivor and doctor examining her regarding name of accused - Further date of letter allegedly written by survivor was 28.06.2017 whereas FIR was lodged on 8.06.2017 creating doubt as case of prosecution was that FIR was lodged on basis of letter of survivor - Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused was alone who committed sexual assault on survivor - Convition was set aside. (Para 17, 19, 20)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Writ petition - Seeking direction upon police not to interfere with civil disputes between petitioner and one person - Admittedly, no crime was registered against petitioner - It was also specific case of respondent police that dispute between petitioner and said person related to money transactions and was civil in nature - Police cannot assume role of civil court or interfere with purely civil dispute between private parties - Where dispute is purely civil in nature and no criminal offence is registered, police cannot employ their authority to compel party to settle dispute or to recover money on behalf of one private individual from another - Accordingly, police were directed to not to interfere with civil dispute between petitioner and said person. (Para 7, 8, 10)

(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (1958), R. 16 - Constitution of India, Art. 309 - Confirmation in service - Denial of - Petitioner was rendering her services continuously without any interruption in Department and had completed her probationary period, however her services were not confirmed - Aggrieved by delay in confirmation, earlier petitioner approached Court in which petitioner was directed to submit representation before competent authority - Thereafter petitioner was informed that charge-sheet was issued against her, alleging that she had secured appointment on basis of false ST certificate - However, certificate of petitioner was held to be genuine by inquiry committee - Since, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner after she had already completed her probationary period, petitioner cannot be denied confirmation in service and regular salary merely on ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings . (Para 10)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Prayer for - Complainant had purchased piece of land and ten feet wide passage was shown as common passage - Subsequently, accused persons claimed that passage as their own and executed registered sale deed in favour of another person which according to complainant amounts to cheating - In respect of same property and alleged right over passage, complainant had already instituted title suit - Allegations raised in suit were substantially related to same transaction and dispute which forms basis of complaint - No specific allegation of deception or dishonest inducement had been made against the accused persons so as to constitute offence u/S. 417 of IPC - Permitting such proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of process of Court - Proceedings were quashed. (Para 4, 7, 8, 10)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Compassionate appointment - Claim for - Father of petitioner was working on Grade IV post when died in harness in 2010 - Application for compassionate appointment was made in 2012 and petitioner failed to produce relevant documents, despite directions issued - Even petitioner approached High Court by filing writ petition in November, 2025 ie after 15 years of death of his father - Compassionate appointment is not alternative to normal course of appointment and there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment - Since, family of deceased could manage to maintain itself for 15 years without even filing writ petition, very object of grant of compassionate appointment was defeated - Petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment. (Para 10, 13)

(A) Central Excise Act (1 of 1944), S.11A(1) - Exemption from excise duty - Benefit of - Entitlement - Exclusion from exemption - Assessee was manufacturing and clearing Vanaspati claiming exemption, allegation that goods cleared after introduction of levy bore brand name "Shiva" and were packed in unit containers for retail sale - Sale invoices bearing said brand name relied upon, though statements of agents/distributors themselves established that goods and containers bore no such marking - Conditions for exclusion being cumulative, burden lay upon Department to establish that goods actually bore brand name - Mere mention of brand name in invoices could not amount to affixation or use of brand name upon goods - Previous manufacture and clearance of branded goods could not, by itself, establish that goods subsequently cleared bore brand name - Exclusion from exemption not attracted - Assessee entitled to benefit of exemption from excise duty and consequential relief. (Para 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 22)

(B) Central Excise Act (1 of 1944), S.11AC - Penalty - Imposition of - Assessee was subjected to penalty of Rs. 37,80,246/- for alleged clearance of branded Vanaspati without payment of duty - Dispute essentially concerned interpretation of exemption notification - No fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty established - Imposition of penalty not justified. (Para 19, 21, 22)

(A) Electricity Act (36 of 2003), S.56(2) - Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges - Demand of penalty - Bar of limitation - Demand of Rs.57,74,164/- was raised by the Distribution Licensee towards Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges for an additional 2000 KVA load allegedly offered to consumer in 1998 - Electricity charges become "first due" when bill quantifying them is issued, and S.56(2) restricts right of licensee to recover or disconnect for such dues after two years unless continuously shown as recoverable in subsequent bills - Since additional load was neither accepted nor supplied and no bills were raised during 1998, demand first raised in 2007 was barred by limitation - Order setting aside demand was proper. (Para 10,11)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 136 - Release from custody - Computation of period - Plea of accused that as on 30.6.2026, he had completed 26 years, 9 months and 22 days of incarceration - Sentences imposed in two cases were directed to run concurrently - Sentences granted concurrently operate simultaneously, hence same period of incarceration cannot, therefore, be notionally counted twice for purpose of determining completion of sentence - Accused cannot treat period preceding later conviction as undertrial custody for one sentence while simultaneously treating same period, from date of earlier conviction, as post-conviction custody for other sentence and thereby secure a double benefit - Methodology adopted by accused, apart from lacking legal foundation, artificially enlarges period of custody by counting overlapping periods more than once - Sovereign assurance so given was that accused would not be subjected to death penalty or imprisonment beyond 25 years -Said commitment was expressly taken note of by Supreme Court in its earlier judgment - Commitment, however, cannot be construed as conferring upon accused a right to an artificial or accelerated computation of period of incarceration - Assurance fixed outer limit of imprisonment and it does not permit periods of custody to be counted twice or otherwise contrary to manner directed by Court - Order of High Court denying release of accused from custody was proper. (Para 10, 15, 16, 18, 19)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 136 - Jail earned remission - Denial of benefit - Plea of accused that he was entitled to benefit of jail-earned remission of 3 years, 6 months and 2 days - Sovereign assurance was conveyed to Govt. of Portugal that, upon extradition to India for trial, accused would neither be subjected to death penalty nor imprisonment exceeding 25 years - Sovereign assurance extended by Union Govt. to Govt. of Portugal was act of Executive in context of extradition, whereas sentence imposed by the TADA Court was an exercise of judicial power, determining punishment commensurate with offences of which accused stood convicted - Supreme Court did not convert sentence of life imprisonment of accused into a sentence of 25 years - It merely recognised sovereign assurance given by Union Govt. and directed that, upon completion of 25 years, Executive would be required to consider exercise of its powers under Art. 72 or, as case may be, Ss.432 and 433 of CrPC - Hence, judgment did not alter sentence, it only delineated consequence of sovereign assurance upon accused completing stipulated period of incarceration - Jail-earned remission cannot be notionally added to period of incarceration so as to further advance release - To permit such a course would, in effect, confer a benefit over and above consequence already flowing from sovereign assurance, notwithstanding that sentence itself remains one of life imprisonment - Order of High Court declining to extend benefit of "jail-earned remission" to accused on ground that no fixed-term sentence was imposed upon him was justified. (Para 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 100 - Second appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Interference by High Court - Tenability - Both trial Court and First Appellate Court had dismissed the suit by holding that revenue entries were treated as conclusive proof of ownership and that long possession had been equated with adverse possession without examining indispensable requirement of hostile animus - These were not pure findings of fact but conclusions drawn upon an erroneous understanding of settled principles of law - High Court did not reassess evidence merely because another view was possible - High Court, found that conclusions recorded were unsupported by legal requirements governing dedication and adverse possession and, consequently, reversed concurrent findings - High Court was, justified in correcting those errors after entertaining second appeal - High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under S. 100 of CPC setting aside concurrent findings of subordinate Courts. (Para .)

(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34 - Suit for declaration - An entry describing possession as "gair marusi bila lagan bawaja Dharam Arth" is neither conclusive proof of a completed dedication nor conclusive proof of permissive possession - Such an entry constitutes an important piece of evidence bearing upon nature of possession, but its legal effect must always be determined in conjunction with surrounding circumstances and entirety of evidence on record. (Para 42)

(C) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art. 65 - Adverse possession - Proof - Neither pleadings nor evidence disclose point of time at which possession of defendants allegedly became hostile to true owners - There was no pleading identifying date from which title of recorded proprietors was openly repudiated, nor evidence demonstrating any overt act by which such hostility was asserted to knowledge of true owners - Absence of these foundational pleadings was not a mere technical defect - They constitute very basis upon which a plea of adverse possession rests - Unless commencement of hostile possession was pleaded and proved, statutory period prescribed under Limitation Act, cannot even begin to run - Trial Court and First Appellate Court had equated long and uninterrupted possession with adverse possession - Such an approach had overlooked settled distinction between two concepts - Findings recorded by Trial Court and affirmed by First Appellate Court, that defendants had perfected title by adverse possession, cannot be sustained. (Para 30, 31, 34)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 376 (2)(f)(Prior to amendment) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 396 - Rape on minor - Compensation - Survivor was merely about four and half years old when offence was committed - Vulnerability and tender age of child, coupled with nature of offence, made offence exceptionally grave and calls for sentence commensurate with its seriousness - Considering totality of facts and circumstances, including age of survivor, nature and gravity of offence, statutory framework applicable at relevant time, and trauma inflicted on child, convict was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years, with fine of Rs. 5,000/- - Even though, emotional harm cannot be quantified in terms of money, considering gravity of offence, age of survivor and severity of emotional harm suffered by her, she was granted compensation of Rs. 10.50 lakhs. (Para 7, 8, 9, 12)

(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002), S. 13 (2) - Debt recovery - Auction sale - Validity - Bank documents disclosed discrepancy regarding date of sanction of subsequent loan and continuation of equitable mortgage created for earlier loan - Bank failed to produce any fresh guarantee or consent executed by petitioner for restructured and enhanced financial facility - Mere mention of petitioner as co-obligate did not establish consent to altered loan terms or bind guarantor without fresh authorization - Statutory notices were not duly served and property valuation was reduced - Auction purchaser deposited only Rs. 3 lakhs initially against mandatory 25% deposit on bid amount of Rs. 28.60 lakhs - Such irregularities went to root of auction proceedings - Mere issuance of sale certificate or delivery of possession could not validate an otherwise illegal action - Sale certificate quashed and Bank directed to refund amount deposited by auction purchaser. (Para 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Writ petition - Alternative remedy - Auction sale in debt recovery proceedings - Mere availability of alternative statutory remedy do not operate as an absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction - Petitioner had raised questions regarding jurisdiction and foundational authority of Bank to proceed against his property, besides alleging violation of mandatory statutory requirements and material irregularities in auction proceedings - Writ petition was maintainable. (Para 45)

(A) Contract Act (9 of 1872), S. 53, S. 73, S. 51, S. 52, S. 54 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 7, R. 2, O. 20, R. 6 - Suit for recovery of money/damages - MOU for sale of company/shares as going concern - Reciprocal promises - Vendors agreed to transfer not less than 51% shares and reconstitute Board before payment of balance consideration - Purchasers, however, paid Rs.1 crore against Rs.50 lakhs payable on execution, but vendors failed to transfer even a single share - Vendors, being themselves in breach, could not claim balance consideration - Termination by purchasers through SMS amounted to lawful avoidance of contract and not wrongful repudiation - Vendors could not invoke S.53 - Damages - Vendors claimed Rs.5.51 crores on plea of distress sale of company for Rs.22.50 crores - No proof of transfer of shares, receipt of consideration or statutory returns produced - Loss not proved - Mere expected profit could not constitute damages - Decree awarding Rs.5.51 crores to vendors, therefore, was unsustainable. (Para 20, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33, 42, 43)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.483, S.35, S.47 - Bail - Entitlement - Applicants served with notice under S.35(3) and simultaneously served with notice under S.47(1) and (2) informing grounds of their arrest - Applicants immediately taken into custody - Statutory scheme cannot be circumvent in such manner - Arrest after issuance of notice is not automatic or routine - Power under S.35(6) is exception and must be exercised on strict objective necessity - Simultaneous service of S.35(3) notice and arrest renders statutory provisions under S.35(6) otiose and defeats legislative intent - Non-compliance with mandatory statutory procedure held prima facie illegal and fatal for purpose of bail - Applicants entitled to bail - Directions issued for circulation of order to police authorities across Maharashtra to ensure adherence to statutory procedure before effecting arrest. (Para 18)

(A) SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations (2003), Regn.3, Regn.4 - Securities and Exchange Board of India Act (15 of 1992), S.15HA, S.15HB, S.15U, S.15Z, S.30 - SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations (1998) - Regns.14(3), 15B(8), 19(1)(a) - Buyback of shares - Fraud - Release of escrow amount - Whether bars subsequent proceedings under PFUTP Regulations - Respondent-company failed to achieve prescribed 50% utilisation of amount earmarked for buyback and escrow amount was released under Regn.15B(8) of Buyback Regulations on account of specified exceptions - Scope of Regn.15B(8) is confined to determining forfeiture or release of escrow and satisfaction of conditions thereunder does not constitute a finding that PFUTP Regulations were not violated - Hence, release of escrow does not bar an independent enquiry into fraudulent conduct - However, finding of fraud could not be sustained without proper examination of material relied upon, as, trading data relied upon by Adjudicating Officer contained material discrepancies and SEBI's earlier investigation recorded no material impact on price or volume attributable to buyback announcement - Such disputed questions of fact required examination by SAT under its statutory appellate powers - Matter was remanded to SAT for fresh adjudication confined to question of fraud. (Para 32, 33, 35, 36, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58)

Partnership Act (9 of 1932), S. 46, S. 48, S. 7, 43 - Dissolution of partnership at will - Share of outgoing partner in assets of dissolved firm - Partnership firm was a partnership at will and plaintiff held 25% share - Plaintiff issued notice seeking dissolution and firm stood dissolved on 18.10.1983 - Preliminary decree, as modified by High Court, entitled plaintiff to rendition of accounts up to date of dissolution and his share with interest - Dispute subsequently arose as to whether plaintiff was entitled only to value of his 25% share in assets as on 18.10.1983 or to 25% of the value realised from assets upon liquidation - Right of partner on dissolution was two-fold, namely, right to settlement of accounts as on date of dissolution and right to share in residue of partnership assets after satisfaction of liabilities under S. 48 - Reference to 18.10.1983 was limited to ascertainment of profits and losses and did not restrict plaintiff's right to receive value of his share in residue of assets - Remaining partners could retain land of erstwhile firm only by purchasing it with consent and settling share of outgoing partner, otherwise, assets had to be liquidated and sale proceeds distributed rateably according to respective shares - Directing sale of land in question and payment of 25 per cent of sale proceeds to LR of original plaintiff, after discharging liabilities was therefore in accordance with Ss. 46 and 48 - Order of High Court directing Advocate Commissioner to sell the land through public auction, unless parties mutually settled their shares, was proper. (Para 57.1, 57.2, 57.3, 58, 59, 60, 61)

(A) Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), S. 3 - LPG Distributorship - Cancellation of candidature - Ground of discrepancy in Khasra number - Same was subsequently rectified by a registered Correction Deed and identity and boundaries of land was undisputed - Cancellation of candidature of petitioner solely on basis of discrepancy in Khasra number, despite its subsequent rectification, cannot be sustained and was set aside - Directions were issued to respondents to consider candidature of petitioner. (Para 17, 18, 20, 21)

(A) Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), S.3 - LPG Distributorship - Rejection of candidature - Forfeiture of fee - Petitioner provisionally selected in draw of lots - Failed to produce valid documents for showroom land declared in application - Admitted Khasra number was incorrect and offered alternative land - Lease deed for alternative land registered after last date for submission of application - Held, candidate must possess valid land on or before cutoff date - Rejection of candidature and forfeiture of FVC fee held proper. (Para 23, 24, 26)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of proceedings - Offence under S.498A of IPC - Amicable settlement of dispute between parties - Proceedings were quashed. (Para 6)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Proof - Quarrel over blockage of drain - Alleged gunshot fired by accused causing death - Investigation found wholly deficient; no scene map prepared, no material recovered and weapons of assault not seized despite eyewitnesses claiming accused carried firearms - Majority of eyewitnesses were close relatives and their testimonies suffered from material discrepancies - Medical evidence showed deceased could have survived 3-6 hours after sustaining gunshot injuries, yet body was taken to police station instead of hospital - Prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside. (Para 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

(A) Punjab School Education Board (Employees' Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations (1991), Regn. 3, Regn. 5, Regn. 8(2) - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Punjab School Education Board Act (24 of 1969), S.24 - Pensionary benefits - Qualifying service - Counting of pre-regularisation service - Respondent employees were first engaged by appellant-Board as Clerks and Peons between 1993 and 1996 on contract/ad-hoc/daily wage/work-charge basis - Their services were regularised pursuant to Government Policy and were placed on regular service with effect from August 2004 - When employee has rendered long and continuous service, and stands ultimately regularised, denial of pensionary benefits based on technicalities or artificialities is generally unjustified - Service rendered by respondents on contract/ad hoc/daily wage basis prior to regularisation must be computed as qualifying service for purpose of retiral and pension benefits - Breaks in service were either 'notional' or artificial/administrative breaks, or precipitated by Court orders - They must be ignored and service should be treated as continuous - Fact that appellant-Board was an autonomous body cannot come to its rescue as appellant had voluntarily adopted policy mutatis mutandis - Also, similarly situated employees in other departments were granted identical relief by High Court and to hold respondents ineligible would be prima facie discriminatory - Respondents were regularised and were entitled to be treated as having entered Government service prior to 01.01.2004 and therefore fell under Tier II of Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. (Para 27, 30, 31, 32, 33)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Pensionary benefits - Claim for - Plea of res judicata - Previous four rounds of litigation concerned the respondent-employees' claim for regularization, whereas present proceedings concerned pensionary consequences of regularization subsequently effected - Fifth round of litigation concluded because appellant-Board voluntarily regularized employees - Cause of action and relief sought herein were totally distinct - Moreover, given instant dispute arose in context of underlying and continuing service relationship between parties - Plea was untenable. (Para 21)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Quo Warranto test - Questioning appointment to a Public office - Ground of lack of authority to occupy - To succeed in a writ of quo warranto, petitioner, even if a stranger to appointment, must establish that person appointed to a public office lacks requisite essential qualification or suffers from a legal disqualification, and therefore has no authority to hold office - Petitioner bears initial burden of proving this through unimpeachable evidence - Once such evidence is produced, burden shifts to appointee and appointing authority to rebut allegations and demonstrate that appointment is lawful and that appointee possesses all essential qualifications. (Para 14)

(B) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Appointment on public office - Challenge against - Appellants challenged appointment of respondent as Assistant Professor through a writ of quo warranto, pleading that his Ph.D. degree from Bundelkhand University was fake - Although challenge was dismissed earlier, subsequent facts prima facie established that no Ph.D. programme was conducted during relevant period - Since advertisement was issued on 14th February 2018, the UGC Regulations, 2010, and not the 2018 Regulations enforced from 18h July 2018, governed appointment - Under applicable rules, UGC-NET/SLET/SET was mandatory qualification, while a valid Ph.D. could provide exemption from this requirement and additional marks - As respondent had qualified NET, he possessed essential qualification and his appointment could not be invalidated through quo warranto merely because Ph.D. was questionable - Quo warranto requires unimpeachable proof that appointee lacks a mandatory qualification or suffers from a legal disqualification - However, as prima facie evidence that Ph.D. might be forged, by invoking Art.142, directions were issued to University to conduct a fresh inquiry in alleged fraud, following natural justice - If Ph.D. is found to be forged and appointment was obtained through deception, appropriate disciplinary and criminal action may be taken in accordance with law - Appointment was not disturbed. (Para 11,12,15,17,18,19,20)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S. 13 (1)(d) - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 120B - Illegal gratification - Demand and acceptance - Lack of proof - Allegation that accused-employed in Veterinary Department assisted in causing heavy losses to Department by submission of false RCC Bills for supply of medicines, which were never supplied - Prosecution examined 62 witnesses, to prove the supply of medicines having not been effected, as per the challans issued and bills passed - One other witness referred to was actual owner of the firm, who was the supplier, who appeared and denied receipt of any money or even the supply of medicines - No investigation took place to find out money trail when amounts were so disbursed from department - In absence of any proof, accused was acquitted. (Para 7, 8, 9)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 149 (2) - Liability of insurer - Third party risk - Insurance Company admitted issuing a policy covering involved vehicle but pleaded that its indemnity was contingent upon policy terms excluding liability for third-party injury or death if vehicle operated without a valid road permit or driving license - However, insurer failed to incorporate specific, categorical allegations asserting that vehicle actually lacked a permit or driving license, instead merely calling upon owner and driver to produce documents or face a presumption of statutory breach - Insurer did not lead any oral or documentary evidence, nor did it produce the policy itself or summon RTO officials to establish absence of a permit - In absence of precise pleadings, claimants and owner/driver were deprived of the opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence - Insurer cannot shift its burden through vague written statements - Insurance Company was rightly held liable to indemnify the owner of the insured vehicle. (Para 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 24)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Compensation - Enhancement - Deceased was a 45-year-old self-employed agriculturist and block-level contractor, whose earnings had been fixed by Tribunal at Rs.6,000 per month due to an absence of written wage registers or tax records - Lack of documentary proof could not entirely obliterate credible oral evidence regarding occupation, finding it just to re-assess monthly income at Rs.8,000 - 25% addition was made for future prospects, 1/4th amount was deducted for personal expenses across five dependants and a multiplier of 14 was applied to compute the loss of dependency - Under conventional heads, Court awarded compensation to widow and four sons for consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate - Compensation was enhanced with interest @ 6% per annum. (Para 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Development permission - Refusal of - Application for grant of development permission in respect of residential colony project was rejected merely on account of non availability of old government record - Earlier, Board of Revenue had set aside ceiling proceedings which was never challenged by State authorities for over two decades - Revenue entries were reflecting name of private persons since year 2010-11 till petitioner had purchased land by various registered sale deeds - Petitioner's name was also mutated in revenue record and no objection had been raised by any authority - Petitioner acted as bonafide purchaser who invested huge amounts after obtaining all valid statutory clearances - Refusal to give development permission was erroneous. (Para 10, 11)

(A) Bihar Pension Rules (1950), R.43(b) - Constitution of India, Art.309 - Departmental proceeding - Against retired Government servant - Limitation and competent authority - Petitioner, Executive Engineer, relieved from deputation in 2018 and superannuated in 2021 - Letter dated 3-12-2018 recommending initiation of proceeding, issued by authority, was neither competent as Conducting Officer nor Appointing Authority and amounted only to recommendation - Neither State Govt. nor competent Appointing Authority took decision to institute proceeding - Resolution initiating proceeding was issued after expiry of four years prescribed under proviso (a)(ii) to R.43(b) - Further, proposed charge did not allege grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to Government, essential for proceeding under R.43(b) - Resolution and consequential order rejecting petitioner's objection, were set aside. (Para 9, 10, 11, 13)