(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 299 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 33 - Record of evidence in absence of accused - Relevancy - When there are more than one accused and one of them absconds, then, after finding proof of jurisdictional facts; of flight and impossibility of immediate arrest, trial could be proceeded against accused brought before Court and concluded - Then, testimony of such witness can be relied on in fresh trial, after arrest of accused, without giving accused opportunity of cross-examination if Court concludes that said witness cannot be found or their presence cannot be procured.

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 299 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 33 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Relevancy of evidence recorded in absence of accused - Two accused were arrayed, charging them for offence of murder of a person - Accused who was alleged with overt act absconded and co-accused was tried, but acquitted - Subsequently accused was arrested and he was tried for murder of victim - At trial stage, after more than decade and a half, crucial witness was not available, having expired - There were other eye-witnesses who turned hostile - One eyewitness who though spoke of having seen assault, did not identify accused - Cross examination of said witness also indicated that there were two persons in village, locality in which crime occurred - Identification or absence of it hence was critical and testimony of eye-witness cannot inculpate accused - Other witnesses turned hostile - Reliance by trial court and High Court was on testimony of crucial witness at earlier instance where he narrated about accused having committed murder - But, there was no order passed under S.299 of Cr.PC. in earlier trial when matter was brought before Court, either at time of committal or at time of commencement of trial - Prosecution as against accused, therefore, fails - Accused was acquitted of charges framed against him. (Para 11,12, 13, 14)

(A) Succession Act (39 of 1925), S.33, S.35, S.38 - Joint family property - Right of inheritance - Christian family - Dispute regarding succession to property purchased by deceased in joint names of his two wives - High Court held that both widows were entitled to one-third of property and only children of first wife were lineal descendants entitled to remaining share under the Succession Act - High Court had incorrectly applied S.33, as disputed property had been purchased in names of two wives of deceased and did not belong exclusively to him - Upon death of one wife, S.35 governed succession, under which deceased husband inherited one-third of her share while remaining two-thirds devolved upon her children - One-third share inherited by deceased husband would thereafter devolve upon all his children, including those born to both wives - As regards half share standing in name of another wife, it would devolve only upon her legal heirs in accordance with S.38, there being no concept of joint family property applicable to Christians. (Para 9,10,11,12,13)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.149 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.61 - Compensation - Liability of insurer - Motor Licensing Office pleaded that due to some technical error at the time of data transfer to outsourced company, there was some loss of data - Driving license being official document, can only be issued by competent authority, subject to applicant meeting all requirements - Original document must be proved by primary evidence - If cannot be so proved, it has to be established that original document existed in first instance and also as to why it cannot be proved by primary evidence - Authority had not produced any document recording loss of data and steps taken by him to recover same, or fill gaps that had been caused thereby - Moreover, owner of vehicle had paid penalty for renewal for relevant period - Hence, inference cannot be drawn that driver had valid licence during accident - Owner had not entered witness box either to say whether on the date of accident driver had a valid license or not, or to say that he had taken steps to ensure that driver's license was renewed after it had expired - Insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation - Principle of 'pay and recover' was applied. (Para 10, 12, 16, 14, 16, 18)

(A) Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act (17 of 1961), S.95(3), S.55 - Chhattisgarh District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service (Employment, Terms and their Working Conditions) Rules (1982), R.5(3)(a) - Promotion - Setting aside of - Legality - As per R.5(3)(a), there was restriction on employees appointed for special technical work from being absorbed or promoted into non-technical or administrative posts - Later, based on representation by technical employees, Additional Registrar deleted R.5(3)(a) by issuing circular - Appellant initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Technical post) in Co-operative Bank was promoted to Post of Additional Manager (Non-technical post) as per amendment in service Rules - As per S.55, Registrar is empowered to exercise its power to regulate service conditions - There is no bar on delegation of functions which are provided under Act - Thus, communication/ circular by Additional Registrar that is purported to be done in furtherance of order of the Registrar cannot be said to be incorrect exercise of power since it explicitly states, 'ordered by Registrar' - Further, S.95(3) provides that all rules made under Act have to be tabled before legislative assembly - However, as there is no consequence of non-compliance of laying procedure, word 'shall' as used in S.95(3) is clearly treated as directory - Promotion granted to appellant was based on valid exercise of power - Setting aside of promotion was erroneous and set aside - Appellant entitled to all benefits of promotion and also 50% back wages with interest @ 6 %p.a. (Para 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Appointment on a civil post - Refusal to grant NOC - As per Air Force Order (AFO), appellant was required to seek permission of competent Air Force Authority prior to making an application for appointment on a civil post - There was no material on record to indicate online and offline submission of any application by appellant - Appellant failed to seek prior permission of competent authority while applying for concerned civil post - Prescription of seeking prior permission before making attempt to apply for civil post and subsequent grant of NOC by competent authority after such selection cannot stated to be simple procedural requirements that could be dispensed with at will of concerned Airman - By skipping first requirement of seeking prior permission to apply for civil post, Airman cannot present a situation of fait accompli and seek grant of NOC by contending that he having been selected to a civil post, requirement of seeking prior permission be completely waived - Refusal to grant NOC was proper. (Para 8, 11, 12)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 2(34) - Customs Act (52 of 1962), S.7 - Public place - Inland Container Depot (ICD) is not a 'public place' as defined under S. 2(34) of MVA. (Para .)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 2(28), S. 39 - Motor vehicle - Reach Stacker whether qualify as being a motor vehicle - Since Reach Stacker is a vehicle dedicated to a particular kind of work which takes place within duly notified areas, it would fall into second half of definition of 'motor vehicles', i.e. exclusion - The way exclusion functions does not require characteristic of motor vehicle to be absent but instead it recognises that despite having characteristics of a motor vehicle, certain types of vehicles cannot be equated to those vehicles that are generally understood to be 'motor vehicles'. (Para .)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 233 - Pay scale - Entitlement - District Judge (Judge) was ordered to be re-instated with continuity of service, seniority and all consequential benefits upon being wrongfully discharged from service by earlier order of Supreme Court - Judge cannot be denied Selection Scale or Super Time Scale when High Court was responsible for his wrongful discharge and resultant non-availability of requisite number of ACRs cannot be relied upon by it to deny Judge grant of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale - Entitlement of Judge to pay scale shall be assessed on basis of remaining valid ACRs - High Court shall accordingly re-fix pay of Judge, revise all consequential benefits and disburse arrears payable to him. (Para 41, 43)

(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S. 54 - Acquisition of land - Compensation - Acquisition for construction of Nangal-Talwara Broad Gauge Railway Line - Reference Court determined market value of acquired land at Rs. 800/- per sq. metre irrespective of classification and granted statutory benefits - Claimants sought further enhancement - Earlier judgment of High Court arising out of same acquisition and common award had upheld compensation at said rate - Issue already concluded by said judgment - Appeal disposed of by applying earlier decision and issuing same directions mutatis mutandis. (Para 5,6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Work-charge status - Grant of - Petitioner claiming conferment of work-charge status with consequential benefits - State not disputing petitioner's entitlement but contending that grant thereof depended upon determination of date of initial engagement - Labour Court, in its award, already held petitioner's date of engagement to be March, 2004 - Respondents could not ignore said finding - Petitioner held entitled to conferment of work-charge status by treating his date of engagement as March, 2004 - Respondents directed to confer work-charge status. (Para 6)

(A) Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply Regulation (2005), Regn. 7, Regn. 12, Regn. 19 - Electricity Act (36 of 2003), S. 43 - New electricity connection - Recovery of arrears of previous consumer - Auction purchaser of assets of company in liquidation applied for new electricity connection - KSEB insisted on payment of electricity arrears due from erstwhile consumer - Earlier service connection had already been dismantled and appellant sought a fresh connection - Statutory provisions specifically mandated that arrears of previous consumer were recoverable from previous owner or occupier and not from purchaser - Charge under Regn. 19 was inapplicable, as agreement of erstwhile consumer pre-dated 2005 Terms and Conditions - KSEB had already lodged its claim in liquidation proceedings as an unsecured creditor and could not indirectly recover same amount from auction purchaser - Sale deed expressly conveyed property free from encumbrances and statutory liabilities of vendor company - Demand held illegal - KSEB directed to grant electricity connection without insisting on payment of previous consumer's arrears (Para 8, 9)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.439 - Bail - Offences u/Ss.109, 333 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Earlier, bail application of accused was rejected - Matter was now listed for recording statements of witnesses - Recording of statements of four witnesses within seven months of framing of charge not showed any delay in progress of trial - Prima facie case made out against accused - Listing of matter on four consecutive dates by Trial Court shows its concern to expeditiously dispose of trial - Thus, accused cannot be released on bail on ground of delay in progress of trial - Further , accused failed to make out any change in circumstances - Bail was rejected. (Para 14,15)

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138, S. 147 - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Accused stood convicted under S. 138 and conviction was affirmed in appeal - During pendency of criminal revision, parties entered into amicable settlement and complainant acknowledged receipt of entire compensation amount and expressed no objection to compounding - Offence under S. 138 being compoundable by virtue of S. 147 of the Act, Court was competent to permit compounding even after recording of conviction - Judgments of conviction and sentence were quashed and set aside and accused was acquitted -Accused, directed to deposit compounding fee with State Legal Services Authority and litigation charges payable to complainant. (Para 5,6,7,8,9,10)

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S. 14 - Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S. 12 - Consumer complaint - Application for rehearing of - Rejection - Appellants were buyers who had booked residential apartments in a project developed by respondent, corporate debtor - Some respondents were promoters/ directors of corporate debtor and while other respondents were landowners of project land - Appellants had preferred application to proceed with consumer complaint against respondents, notwithstanding moratorium operating against corporate debtor - NCDRC, however, rejected the application - Respondent alone was corporate debtor against whom CIRP was initiated - No independent moratorium or independent protection operates in favour of other respondents - In absence of any legal bar against continuation of proceedings qua said respondents, NCDRC was not justified in rejecting appellants' prayer to proceed with complaint against rest of the respondents - Commission was required to adjudicate complaint against respondents - It was not open to Commission to foreclose that inquiry at the interlocutory stage - Order rejecting applications seeking continuation of consumer complaint against respondents cannot be sustained as it declines to undertake said exercise. (Para 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Interim protection - Vacation of - Petitioner repeatedly failed to appear before the Investigating Officer despite specific directions of Court and repeated undertakings, and having failed to produce any satisfactory material justifying such non-compliance, held, petitioner had deliberately defied the orders of Court and failed to cooperate with the investigation - Interim protection was vacated and petitions were dismissed, with liberty to file a fresh petition after joining and cooperating with the investigation. (Para 6,7,8)

(A) U. P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules (2014), R. 16 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Recruitment - Post of Instructors - Objection raised by SoUP that appellants applied under advertisements with full awareness that acquisition of CITS certificate was only desirable qualification; hence, they were estopped from challenging same - If 2014 Rules were bad, and consequently advertisements following it were also bad, appellants should have challenged same instead of applying for appointment on said posts knowing fully well that non-CITS certificate holders were also being considered eligible - Appellants cannot be allowed to raise their voice against 2014 Rules and/or advertisements since, admittedly, no question was raised by any one of them before participation in written examination - Objection being well founded, was upheld. (Para 9, 10)

(B) U. P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules (2014), R. 16 - Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 309 - Recruitment - Post of Instructors - Selection Committee could not prescribe qualifying or cut-off marks not contemplated by the statutory Rules - Once the Rules provided only one method of shortlisting candidates, it was impermissible to superimpose an additional eligibility criterion during selection - Change in rules of the game midway was arbitrary and vitiated the selection process - As vacancies remained available and appellants were subjected to arbitrary exclusion, directions were issued to consider them for appointment against vacant posts in the relevant discipline/trade. (Para 18, 19, 22, 23)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 482 - Anticipatory bail - Prayer for - Offence of cheating in furtherance of criminal conspiracy - Considering case and counter case of the parties and further considering possibility of false accusation and also considering the prima facie absence of any cogent materials against accused, accused was directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds. (Para 6)

(A) Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (3 of 1888), S. 476AA, S. 394(1)(a)(ii) - Storage of inflammable material without permission - Accused allegedly stored rubber solution in his godown which was proved to be combustible/inflammable liquid - Rubber solution comes under combustible liquid and for storing of same, permission from Municipal Corporation is required - Petitioner admitted ownership of godown and could not avoid statutory liability merely on plea that he was only transporter - Conviction and sentence was proper. (Para 11, 12, 13, 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Financial upgradations - Entitlement to - Respondent joined Indian Railways as Goods Guard and was promoted to Mail/Express Guard until his retirement on superannuation and upon implementation of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations were granted to respondent - Railway Board recognised that different Zonal Railways were applying MACPS differently to Guard category - Circular was issued by Board stating that employee of Guard cadre who had traversed the hierarchy up to Mail/Express Guard had, by virtue of three counted promotions, exhausted all three financial upgradation slots available under the MACPS and respondent was not entitled to financial upgradation - Contention of respondent that Guard cadre movements cannot qualify as "promotions" because they did not result in Grade Pay improvement was not tenable as promotion did not cease to be a promotion merely because the promotee's Grade Pay did not change - There was no promotional post in the cadre carries Grade Pay above Rs. 4200/- and granting MACP at Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- or Rs. 4800/- would be a windfall that exceeded the financial ceiling of the cadre altogether - Respondent stated that MACPS was intended to address financial stagnation and that a Guard who spent thirty-two years in service without ever improving his Grade Pay beyond Rs. 4200/- was by any measure, stagnant in financial sense - Grade Pay of respondent did not progress because Sixth CPC decided to compress the Guard posts into a single Grade Pay - Respondent was not entitled to financial upgradation. (Para 65)

(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (67 of 1957), S.9A, S.13 - Mineral Concession Rules (1960), R.31 - Stamp Act (2 of 1899), S.26 - Determination of stamp duty - For mining lease agreement - Amount payable either based on royalty or dead rent - Undisputed fact that on date of execution of mining agreement, value of subject matter is indeterminate - Proviso to S.26 specifically provides that in cases where value of subject matter is indeterminate, estimated royalty or value of share shall be sufficient for purposes of determining stamp duty - Further, Notification was issued by Dept. providing that calculation of royalty can be either quantity based or dead rent but it nowhere provides that dead rent is only criteria based on which determination of royalty can be made - Further, parties consciously signed Agreement that contained in Form K, which is statutory form which clearly mentions that for purposes of calculation of Stamp Duty, anticipated royalty is yardstick to be used - Thus, higher amount is to be paid and method for calculation of stamp duty is through anticipated royalty only. (Para 10, 11, 13, 14)

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (28 of 1977), S. 91A - Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai (1991), Regn. 33(7) - Cessed building redevelopment - Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) - Enforcement - Appellants sought enforcement of PAAA executed by developer under statutory redevelopment scheme, claiming entitlement as certified occupants of old building - Developer pleaded that PAAA was unauthorized and unenforceable, one appellant was not occupant and other appellants were entitled only to two flats corresponding to original tenement - MHADA pleaded that said one appellant was consistently shown as occupant in certified records and that execution of PAAA and rehabilitation of occupants were mandatory under statutory scheme before occupation certificate could be granted - Contemporaneous documents, including certified list, public notice and possession records, established status of said appellant as occupant and developer had itself obtained consent and possession on promise of permanent alternate accommodation - Internal disputes among partners of developer, alleged invalidity of PAAA or reduction in fungible FSI could not defeat appellants' accrued rights under PAAA and statutory redevelopment scheme - High Court erred in treating PAAA as a purely private arrangement and restraining MHADA from enforcing its statutory orders - Orders directing execution and registration of PAAA and delivery of possession were restored - Civil suit subsequently filed by developer challenging PAAA despite earlier undertaking was misconceived and mala fide - Developer was directed to execute PAAA and hand over possession of all three agreed flats within two months, failing which appellants were held entitled to recover rental-value damages besides damages for delay. (Para 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.457 - Release of truck - Petitioner was ready and willing to pay penalty amount in easy six installments - Authority directed to release truck of petitioner on payment of penalty. (Para 5)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Electricity supply - Shifting of electricity pole - Petitioner challenged shifting of electricity pole on ground that same was shifted from common passage to private property of respondent no. 6 without consent - Dispute as to whether place where pole was installed earlier or presently was common passage or private property being a matter requiring adjudication by Civil Court - Such dispute cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction - WBSEDCL Authorities directed to ensure access to pole for rectification of technical faults and removal of interruption in supply. (Para 9,10,11,12,13)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Offences u/Ss.306,147, 148, 323 of Penal Code - Allegation that deceased was assaulted by accused persons shortly before he committed suicide by itself, not constituted "instigation" within meaning of S. 107 of Penal Code - Mere harassment or humiliation, howsoever grave, cannot, in absence of any material showing intentional instigation, incitement or active aid, constitute the offence of abetment of suicide - Proceedings liable to be quashed. (Para 5,6,7)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.483 - Bail - Offences u/Ss. 127(3), 137(2), 64(1) and 78(2) of BNS - Delay in lodging FIR - Testimony of prosecutrix revealing that she stayed with accused for about five days without raising any protest despite washroom not being attached to place where she was residing and premises being situated in populated locality - Prosecution not expressed any apprehension qua accused fleeing away from justice - Bail was granted. (Para 5)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Appointment - Post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) - Grievance of petitioner that instead of recommending him for appointment, respondent was offered appointment on said post - Undisputed fact that petitioner and respondent had passed their examination of PET in same batch i.e. 2000 - Respondent was offered appointment on being qualified earlier - Though petitioner passed examination in same batch, certificate was issued on 14.09.2000, whereas respondent though initially failed, but on re-evaluation was declared pass, his certificate was issued on 09.09.2000 - Also, petitioner had scored more marks than respondent in examination - Once both petitioner and respondent had acquired their qualification in same year, authority had committed illegality while offering appointment to respondent and ignoring merit of petitioner - Since respondent had already been offered appointment - Direction was issued upon authorities to offer appointment to petitioner and grant all benefits such as seniority from date when respondent had been offered appointment. (Para 9,11,12,18)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 439 - Bail - Regular bail - Conspiracy and assault case - Petitioner not named in FIR, subsequently implicated on supplementary statement of complainant - Alleged role limited to facilitating recce and providing local assistance to co-accused - No direct evidence of hatching conspiracy except disclosure statements and circumstantial inferences - Petitioner in custody since considerable period and trial not likely to conclude soon - Continued detention held not justified - Bail granted subject to conditions. (Para 7)

(A) Companies Act (18 of 2013), S. 212(1)(c) - Investigation - By Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) - Order directing investigation - Interim protection - Central Government passed order directing investigation into affairs of company - Order not communicated to petitioners, who became aware of it only subsequently - Since order was not within knowledge of petitioners when earlier interim order was passed and connected writ petitions were pending before Regular Bench, held, impugned order shall not be acted upon till next date of hearing or until further orders, whichever is earlier - Interim protection extended and earlier order modified accordingly. (Para 8,9,10,11,12)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act (13 of 1994), S. 254(1) - Unauthorized construction - Alleged erection of iron angle steel structure on roof of adjoining building without obtaining prior permission from competent authority - Complaint made to Municipal Corporation - Corporation inspecting site and issuing notices to stop unauthorized construction and to produce sanctioned building plan - Writ petition disposed of with direction to Corporation to take further action in accordance with law after hearing concerned party - Rights of parties, including petitioner's easementary rights, kept open. (Para 4,5)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Claim petition - Involvement of vehicle - Determination - Deceased being friend of appellant sat in his car and went away, subsequently, he turned up dead - In criminal case, last seen theory not being proved, accused was acquitted of all charges - LRs of deceased filed claim petition alleging that deceased was killed inside vehicle of appellant and hence vehicle was involved in commission of offence - Liability under Act cannot be fastened only because of accident and motor vehicle - 'Arising out of' is causal link - Without this, liability falls - No causal link was established - Evidence did not point to any forensic proof having been recovered from car - Neither it was anybody's case that car of appellant was involved in any collision - Simply because there was car involved in chain of circumstances that led to death, provisions of MVA would not apply - Relationship between two specifically involving motor vehicle had not been established - Consequently, no liability under MVA - However, amount of compensation, if already paid shall not be subjected to any recovery. (Para 10, 13, 14)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Evidence - Standard of proof - Distinction between criminal case and civil case - Standard of proof in criminal case is higher, either beyond reasonable doubt or ruling out of any other possibility and chain of circumstances being so complete to point guilt only to accused and no one else - Whereas in civil case preponderance of probability is standard and evidence has to be looked at differently. (Para 11)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Merger of cadres - Posts of Live Stock Extension Inspector and Live Stock Extension Officer merged into one unified cadre retrospectively w.e.f. 1-1-1986 pursuant to recommendations of Committee and Pay Commission on finding that both posts carried identical qualifications, duties and responsibilities - Upon merger, employees of both erstwhile cadres constituted one homogeneous class and their separate identity stood obliterated - Entitlement to service benefits and pay scale thereafter had to be determined with reference to their status in unified cadre and not on basis of pre-merger designation. (Para 24,25,26,30,32,33,34,35)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 14, Art. 16 - Pay parity - Government Order granting higher revised pay scale only to employees who were working as Live Stock Extension Officers prior to 1-1-1986 while denying same benefit to other members of unified cadre - Validity - Classification founded solely on pre-merger status or source of entry into unified cadre had no rational nexus with object of cadre integration and removal of pay disparity - Creation of two different pay scales within same cadre held arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 16- - Government Order rightly quashed and respondents held entitled to revised pay scale with consequential benefits. (Para 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40)