Saturday, August 8

Supreme Court

In Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court held that when a High Court refuses to quash an FIR, it cannot indirectly protect the accused from arrest by directing the police to follow procedures like notice under Section 35(3) BNSS (earlier Section 41A CrPC) without proper reasons. The Court said such relief can be granted only after considering the merits and hearing the complainant. Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, it set aside the High Court’s order and sent the case back for fresh consideration.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on a multifactor assessment—chiefly control, supervision, business integration, remuneration source, and disciplinary authority—rather than on mere provision of facilities or subsidies. Deciding in General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Achchey Lal (2025 INSC 1175), the Court set aside rulings that had treated a bank’s canteen workers as its employees, holding that the bank only provided infrastructure and subsidy while a staff society hired and managed the workers, negating a direct master–servant relationship.

In Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court held that when a High Court refuses to quash an FIR, it cannot indirectly protect the accused from arrest by directing the police to follow procedures like notice under Section 35(3) BNSS (earlier Section 41A CrPC) without proper reasons. The Court said such relief can be granted only after considering the merits and hearing the complainant. Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, it set aside the High Court’s order and sent the case back for fresh consideration.