(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Rejection of technical bid - Legality - Technical bid of appellant was rejected on the ground that 'haisiyat praman patra' submitted by appellant was issued by private architect and not by District Magistrate - No condition in NIT stated that 'haisiyat praman patra' must be issued only by a District Magistrate in terms of a Govt. notification - Plea that such condition was implied could not be accepted since respondent was a body constituted under a statute and nothing was placed on record to show that government notification was applicable to all tenders floated by respondent - Rejection of appellant's technical bid was quashed being dehors the terms of NIT - Matter was remanded for reconsideration of technical bid of respondent. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Rejection of technical bid - Additional ground raised before Supreme Court - Permissibility - Technical bid of appellant was rejected on the ground that 'haisiyat praman patra' submitted by appellant was issued by private architect and not by District Magistrate - Additional ground was raised before the Supreme Court that since the certificate did not disclose encumbrances, if any, on the asset, it could not be termed as a 'haisiyat praman patra' indicating net worth of bidder - If valuation certificate showed that worth of appellant's share in the asset far exceeded Rs.10 crores as required under the NIT, and respondent doubted that the asset was encumbered, it ought to have enquired from appellant - An order of rejection must be sustained on grounds stated therein and additional grounds cannot be raised subsequently. (Para 16, 17)

(A) Insurance Act (4 of 1938), Preamble - Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.2(1)(g) - Fire insurance - Compensation claim - Insurance Company repudiated claim stating that fire was not accidental and hence not covered under the policy - Actual fire damage was proved by police investigation report , preliminary Surveyor's report and photographs of fire - National Commission stated that final surveyor had not proved that fire was not accidental and Insured's bank auditor, architect, and CA reports were adequate to assess the loss - Plea of insurer that Insured failed to prove that cause of fire was accidental and provided no forensic or expert evidence and claims for furniture, fittings, and fixtures (FFF) were not covered under the policy , not acceptable as Insured had provided 5855 pages of documents proving its loss - Final surveyor never alleged fraud or deliberate act and his conclusion that fire was "not accidental" was not supported and therefore fire was deemed to be accidental and covered by policy - Since policy explicitly used the term "FFF", Furniture, Fixtures, and Fittings, insured was entitled to claim under FFF - Final surveyor failed to analyse detailed documents and arbitrary valuation and disregard of records rendered report perverse and unreliable - Fire was accidental and it was covered under the policy - Insurer was held liable to pay compensation to insured. (Para 41, 42, 48, 55, 57, 58, 63)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 307, S. 149, S. 34 - Murder, attempt to murder, unlawful assembly and common object - Reversal of order of acquittal - Challenge against - Appellants along with other accused persons, had allegedly attacked deceased with sharp weapons causing his death on spot and serious injuries to other persons - Consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses established that while two appellants transported the armed assailants to the spot and facilitated attack, another appellant inflicted injuries during assault -Medical evidence corroborated ocular evidence and showed brutal and coordinated nature of attack - Timing, nature and multiplicity of injuries indicated deliberate and orchestrated assault executed in furtherance of a common unlawful object - Nature of weapons used, ferocity and precision of the attack, showed that the common object of the assembly extended beyond merely causing hurt - Evidence on record conclusively established that all three appellants were members of an unlawful assembly that carried out a premeditated and violent attack on deceased and the injured - Role of appellant who inflicted serious injuries upon witness demonstrated his direct involvement and awareness of collective design - Appellants who transported armed assailants to the scene, played crucial role by facilitating the attack and ensuring its execution in furtherance of common object - High Court had rightly reversed acquittal of appellants (Para 43, 44, 45, 46, 47)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 449, S. 376, S. 394 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Accused had allegedly committed robbery at the house of 85 years old lady, raped and murdered her - Prosecution had failed to connect accused to offence through medical or forensic evidence as his blood, hair, skin, or fingerprint was not found on body of deceased, recovered articles, or at place of occurrence - Witness had failed to link accused to place of occurrence as his testimony had only established proximity to place of occurrence - Factum of informant having seen accused on an over-bridge at 4 am was doubtful since identity of informant was not disclosed - It was not clear as to how police had identified accused when none of the police officials had any occasion to see him - Doubt was also cast upon cause of injury on left leg of accused as accused had denied injury having been caused due to jumping from over-bridge and claimed that he was tortured in police custody - Recovery of two gold bangles from pocket of accused was doubtful - Non-examination of person, who had accompanied accused for a smoke at 2:00 a.m. from house of his friend and who was only person with whom accused had last gone out of house was also material since offence was committed between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. - There was strong possibility of false implication - Chain of circumstances was not complete - Benefit of doubt was given to accused. (Para 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 142 - Dissolution of marriage - Irritrievable breakdown of marriage - Parties had been living separately for more than fifteen years - Attempt at reconciliation through mediation had also failed - Despite wife contesting grant of divorce, there was no marital bond surviving between them - Husband was ready to pay an additional amount as permanent alimony and for settlement of all pending dues , over and about what had already been paid by him - Amount offered by husband was reasonable - Marriage between parties was dissolved. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.32 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Dying declaration - Reliability - Allegation that accused and co-accused entered into criminal conspiracy in order to kill deceased and her son and on the date of incident set her ablaze, resulting into her death and injury to son - First dying declaration given by deceased before independent witness was supported by independent documentary evidence - Said dying declaration could not have been ignored merely on account of minor discrepancies - Panchnama showed that investigating agency had found one empty container smelling of kerosene from the place of incident and soil from place of incident also had smell of kerosene - Theory of accidental fire could not be believed since deceased sustained 100% burn injuries but her 4 years old son sleeping beside her sustained only 10-12% burn injuries - High Court had rightly reversed acquittal of accused. (Para 11, 12, 13, 15)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20, S. 16(c) - Suit for specific performance - Readiness and willingness - Proof - Plaintiff was required to pay balance of only Rs.10,000, out of total sale consideration within six months from date of agreement - However, within that period, defendants had demanded additional amount and same was paid by plaintiff regarding which signed endorsement was made by defendants on back of agreement - High Court had erred in interfering with finding of first appellate court regarding payment of additional sum by discarding the endorsement - Though some amount remained to be paid, by accepting additional amount after expiry of six months, defendants had treated agreement as subsisting and thereby waived their right to forfeit earnest money on non-payment of balance consideration within six months from date of agreement - Non-issuance of notice by plaintiff, requesting performance within six months, would not be fatal to suit for specific performance and, it would also not be determinative of whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part under contract - Once finding regarding payment of additional sum to defendants recorded by first Appellate Court was sustained, there was no logical reason to hold that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform its part under contract particularly when 90% of agreed amount was already paid. (Para 18, 19, 20)

(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 - Suit for specific performance - Declaratory relief - When required to be sought - Explained. (Para .)

(C) Contract Act (9 of 1872), S. 55 - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 - Suit for specific performance - Maintainability of - Failure to seek declaratory relief regarding termination of contract - Sale agreement neither provided for automatic termination of contract nor conferred right on vendors to unilaterally terminate same for non-payment of balance sale consideration within specified period of six months - Agreement stipulated about forfeiture of earnest money for non-deposit of balance consideration - However, vendors had accepted additional amount of Rs.1,95,000 after expiry of six months and made an endorsement to that effect on back of agreement - By doing such acts, vendors had waived their right, to forfeit earnest money and by such acceptance and endorsement on back of agreement, they treated contract as subsisting - Moreover, vendors by transferring part of suit property in favour of co-defendant, even before serving a forfeiture notice, had committed breach of contract - Plaintiff, vendee had an option to treat contract as subsisting and sue for specific performance particularly when termination was a void act, no longer permissible under varied contract - Suit for specific performance was maintainable even without seeking a declaration that termination of contract was invalid. (Para 22, 24, 33)

(D) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 (Prior to Amendment Act of 2018), S. 10 (Prior to Amendment Act of 2018), S. 14 (Prior to Amendment Act of 2018) - Specific performance - Entitlement to the relief of - Sale agreement did not fall in any of the categories mentioned in S. 14 - Plaintiff had paid some sale consideration and was ready and willing to perform his part of contract - Though plaintiff had not paid balance sale consideration within stipulated period of 6 months ,act of defendants, of accepting additional amount of Rs.1,95,000, which they acknowledged by making an endorsement on back of agreement, not only signified their waiver of right to forfeit earnest money paid by plaintiff but also acknowledged subsistence of agreement - High Court's conclusion that plaintiff had set up a false case of additional payment was unsustainable and could not be a ground to decline discretionary relief of specific performance - Merely because plaintiff's claim that property was in his possession was not accepted, relief of specific performance could not be declined, particularly, when he had already paid over 90% of agreed consideration and paid additional amount also as demanded by defendants - Further, co-defendant was related to defendants and, therefore, not a bona fide purchaser - High Court had erred in law by setting aside decree of specific performance passed by first Appellate Court. (Para 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)

(E) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 100 - Second appeal - Finding of fact - Scope of interference - Suit for specific performance - Plaintiff was required to pay balance of only Rs.10,000, out of total sale consideration within six months from date of agreement - However, within that period, defendants had demanded additional amount and same was paid by plaintiff regarding which endorsement was made by defendants on back of agreement - Signatures of defendants on endorsement were not disputed - First Appellate Court had accepted endorsement - High Court observed that genuineness of endorsement was not proved - High Court had committed a mistake in discarding endorsement - While disturbing finding of first Appellate Court, High Court did not hold that finding returned by first Appellate Court was based on a misreading of evidence, or was in ignorance of relevant evidence, or was perverse - There was no occasion for High Court, exercising power under S. 100 of CPC, to interfere with finding of fact recorded by first Appellate Court regarding payment of additional amount to defendants more so, when first Appellate Court had drawn its conclusion after appreciating evidence available on record. (Para 14, 15, 17)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 147 - Liability of insurer - Pay and recover - Offending vehicle had no permit to enter concerned city, where accident took place - Therefore terms of permit were deviated - Purpose of insurance policy was to shield owner/operator from direct liability when such unforeseen incident takes place - To deny victim/dependents of victim compensation simply because accident took place outside bounds of permit and, therefore, was outside purview of insurance policy, would be offensive to sense of justice, for accident itself was for no fault of his - Hence , Insurance Company ought to pay - At same time , when an Insurance Company takes on a policy and accepts payments of premium in pursuance thereto, it agrees to do so within certain bounds - Contract lays down four corners within which such an insurance policy would operate - If that was the case, to expect insurer to pay compensation to a third party, which was clearly outside bounds of said agreement would be unfair - Balancing need for payment of compensation to victim vis-a-vis interests of insurer, order of High Court applying pay and recover principle, was justified. (Para 8, 9, 10)

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 195(1)(b)(i) - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 195A - Threatening any person to give false evidence - Complaint regarding - Powers of police officer - Since offence u/S 195A IPC is a cognizable offence , police have power to take action in relation thereto u/Ss 154 and 156 of CrPC - It is only by way of an additional remedy that S 195A CrPC permits the threatened witness or any other person acting on his behalf to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate to set the process of criminal law in motion.

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.118, S.8 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.147, S.148, S.149, S.302, S.307 - Unlawful assembly, murder and attempt to murder - Common object - Allegation that when accused damaged Mendh (ridge) of field, deceased objected and accused started hurling abuses, thereafter, they called other accused, who assaulted deceased and other victims with dangerous weapons - Testimony of injured eyewitness was corroborated by testimony of eye-witnesses - Parties were close relatives - There was long-standing dispute between them due to pending land boundary dispute - Motive to kill was established - Sharp-edged weapons like spade, Phawara, axe were used and fatal head injuries were inflicted - Assault was not sudden or in heat of passion so as to attract Excption 4 to S.300 of IPC - Nature and extent of injuries, coupled with surrounding circumstances, established that they were intentionally inflicted - Delay of 3 days in lodging cross-FIR by victim side was satisfactorily explained, as son of a deceased took deceased and injured to hospital and then lodged FIR - Non-recovery of weapons cannot be considered fatal to prosecution due consistent medical and ocular evidence - Conviction was proper. (Para 26, 34, 35, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.7, S.13(1)(d) , S.13(2) - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Illegal gratification - Reversal of acquittal - Correctness - Acquittal of appellant from charges of corruption, was reversed by High Court - Charge framed by the Trial Court was confined to an alleged demand and acceptance of Rs 3,000 - High Court convicted appellant for demand and acceptance of Rs 6,000 - Since it was not case of either party that appellant physically handled tainted notes, High Court had erred in attributing wrongful intent to the appellant on the basis of negative 'hand-wash' test - Narration of complainant, which was the only basis of prosecution's version of demand and acceptance, was riddled with serious infirmities - Major lapses in investigation were found and defence claim supported by two credible independent witnesses, that complainant planted money, appeared to be plausible - Testimonies of said witnesses could not have been rejected merely because they appeared before appellant in an official capacity - In view of provision for deemed renewal of licences, there was no reason for complainant to repeatedly visit office of appellant to enquire about licence - Evidence supported defence version -High Court had erred in reversing acquittal based on proper appreciation of evidence (Para 13,15,16,17,18,20-35)

(A) Commercial Courts Act (4 of 2016), S.12A - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.11 - Suit for infringement of intellectual property rights - Requirement of pre-institution mediation - Urgent interim relief - Test to determine - Suit pertained to continuing infringement of patent and design rights - Since each day of continuing infringement would aggravate injury to plaintiff's intellectual property and erode its market standing, urgency was inherent in the nature of wrong - The relief sought was urgent on account of public interest element, need to prevent confusion in market and to protect consumers from deception - Held, in actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency must be assessed in the context of ongoing injury and public interest in preventing deception - Mere delay in institution of a suit by itself, does not negate urgency when infringement is continuing - High Court had erred in insisting upon pre-institution mediation and rejecting plaint for non-compliance with S.12A of Commercial Courts Act. (Para 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Dismissal from service - Challenge against - Four charges were levelled against delinquent TTE for demand of illegal gratification from passengers, possession of excess undeclared cash, failure to recover difference of fare from a passenger and forging signature to extend validity of his duty card pass - As regards charge of demanding illegal gratification, one passenger was not examined and other two did not support prosecution case - No official document was placed before Enquiry Officer to substantiate charge of possession of excess undeclared cash - Neither concerned passenger was examined nor excess fare receipt book was produced to prove charge of failure to recover difference of fare - No evidence was adduced to prove charge of forgery - Since findings of Enquiry Officer were perverse, based on misreading of material on record, CAT was justified in setting aside order of dismissal - High Court had erred in reversing decision of CAT - Since incident happened 37 years ago and delinquent had passed away, directions were issued that all consequential monetary benefits shall be released in favour of legal heirs of deceased employee. (Para 18)

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules (2022), R. 22 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S. 63 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 497 - Vehicle seized under NDPS Act - Interim custody of vehicle -Prayer for - Allegation that police intercepted truck of appellant given on hire for transporting iron sheets, and on search 1.5 kilograms of Ganja was found concealed beneath driver seat - Additional 1.5 kilograms ganja each was recovered from personal possession of other three accused - Appellant was owner of truck, having valid documents - Appellant was neither charge-sheeted nor was accused of conspiracy - Considering the valuable consignment being transported and high value of vehicle, it was highly improbable that owner of vehicle would knowingly jeopardize his business and property by permitting transportation of Ganja - Said circumstances indicated that contraband was procured by drivers and/or khalasis without knowledge or connivance of appellant, showing his bona fides and lack of involvement - Vehicle was ordered to be released on supardagi to the appellant on terms and conditions to be imposed by the Special Court (Para 31, 32, 34, 35, 36)

(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules (2022), R. 22 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S. 63 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 497 - Vehicle seized under NDPS Act - Interim custody of - Power of Special Courts - Effect of Rules of 2022 - Rules of 2022 cannot be interpreted as divesting the Special Courts of their jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim custody or release of a seized conveyance under Sections 451 and 457 of CrPC [Sections 497 and 503 of BNSS] -The authority of the Special Court to pass appropriate orders for interim custody during the pendency of the trial, as well as to make final determination upon its conclusion, continues to operate independently of the disposal mechanism envisaged under the said Rules - Any interpretation to the contrary would lead to anomalous and unjust consequences (Para 22, 26 to 30)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 386 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 304 Part II - Sentence - Modification of - Circumstances leading to death of deceased S were duly proved before trial court - In appeal, High Court had awarded sentence of 8 years of RI to appellant - Deceased S was younger brother of V who had raped accused's cousin and was undergoing sentence of imprisonment - In connection with same, a scuffle and thereafter an open fight took place during which two opposing factions were giving blows and hits to each other - Evidence on record showed that S had intervened in course of the fight and was attempting to bring about peace between two factions - Neither S was instrumental in provoking accused nor was the blow struck on S's neck by accused by mistake or accident - Accused had knowledge that his act of striking S with axe on his neck was likely to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death - While Sessions court had sentenced accused to imprisonment of 10 years, High Court had been indulgent towards accused and granted relief to him by reducing term sentence - While undue leniency in awarding sentence can cause public confidence in the justice system to plummet, excessive severity may lead to injustice - Sentence imposed by High Court was proper. (Para 22, 27, 28)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 14 - Retirement age - Claim for parity - Question before the Court was as to whether the doctors, practicing allopathy and indigenous medicine; like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani etc. can be treated equally for the purpose of determining service conditions; herein, specifically retirement age - In view of divergence of opinion between two Hon'ble judges of the bench, matter was referred to larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue (Para 9, 10)

(A) Income-Tax Act (43 of 1961), S. 9, S. 32(2), S. 37(1) - Income Tax - Deduction of business expenditure and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation - Permissibility - Appellant, a non-resident company had failed to procure a new contract for the work being carried on by it for ONGC - However, continuous business correspondence with ONGC and earlier unsuccessful bid were acts aimed at carrying on business in India which unfortunately did not fructify in procuring a contract - Tribunal had rightly observed that a business going through a lean period of transition which could be revived if proper circumstances arose, is a lull in business and not a complete cessation of business - Finding recorded by High Court that appellant was not carrying on business as it had no subsisting contract with ONGC during the relevant period, was erroneous - Finding recorded by High Court that as appellant did not have a permanent establishment and corresponded with ONGC from its foreign office, it could not be said to be carrying on business in India, was also erroneous - Relevant provisions do not require non-resident company to have a permanent office within country to carry on business or have any business connection in India - Order of High Court disallowing deduction of business expenditure and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, was set aside. (Para 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,21)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Termination of services - Challenge against -Services of four Class IV employees were terminated on the ground that their appointments exceeded number of vacancies advertised - While number of vacancies mentioned in advertisement was twelve , advertisement specifically indicated that there could be an increase or decrease of vacancies - Same indicated that Appointing Authority intended that a wait list be maintained so as to fill up the vacancies arising in excess of those notified, which was permissible as per the rules - After the advertisement of 2000, advertisements were issued in 2008 and 2015 - Vacancies arose within the said period, and therefore appellants were appointed on various dates subsequent to the appointment to the twelve vacancies advertised - Termination of services was not justified (Para 6,8,9,10,11)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S.25 - Transfer of suit - Prayer for - Two competing transfer petitions were filed by respective plaintiffs in respect of a suit for infringement filed before Delhi High Court and a suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement filed before Bombay High Court - Suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement governed by Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, had an independent cause of action from that of a suit for infringement governed by Sections 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 - Suit for groundless threat of infringement pending before Bombay High Court was instituted prior in point of time to the suit for infringement - Jurisdiction at Delhi had been invoked by purchasing the product from an online portal and getting it delivered in Delhi - Questions of fact, law, and the issues to be determined in the suits were substantially overlapping - For saving precious judicial time and to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, suit for infringement pending before Delhi High Court was transferred to the Bombay High Court where suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement was pending (Para 9, 10, 12)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3, S. 145 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 34 - Murder - Proof - Allegation that when son of informant requested accused and co-accused persons to desist from damaging hut of witness, they assaulted him with dangerous weapons which resulted in his death - While FIR mentioned that a hut near residence of a witness was being demolished by accused persons, alleged eyewitness cousin of deceased claimed that assault had occurred in a field - Another alleged eyewitness had shifted crime scene to a place near his own house and denied demolition of any hut - Both alleged eyewitnesses had suppressed genesis of occurrence and changed crime scene - Said eyewitnesses did not acknowledge each other's presence at crime scene - Prosecution had failed to establish genesis of occurrence and place of incident - Same demolished very substratum of prosecution case - Conviction of accused was set aside in view of contradictions and inherent improbabilities in testimonies of alleged eyewitnesses - Since entire prosecution case had fallen, Supreme Court exercised powers u/Art.142 of the Constitution and extended benefit of the judgment to co-accused persons who had not challenged their conviction. (Para 27, 29, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Recruitment Process - Direction for CBI Inquiry - Powers of High Court - A special appeal filed against order passed by Single Judge in petition challenging selection process as being unfair, unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and collusive, and a writ petition for quashing selection and praying for high level inquiry were clubbed together by Division Bench of High Court - By common order, direction was issued for CBI inquiry and for registering case as suo-motu P.I.L. - Admittedly, no party had prayed for an inquiry by CBI - Direction was issued on an assumption of doubt and without having any necessary foundation and prayer by any party - Directions for CBI inquiry cannot be issued in routine manner - Prima facie threshold required for issuing such direction was not satisfied - Orders directing CBI inquiry and suo motu PIL registration were set aside. (Para 14, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25)

Mohammedan Law, Matruka Property - Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S 54 - Suit for partition - Matruka property - Plaintiff who was brother of deceased claimed that all the property left behind by deceased was matruka property and he would be entitled to 3/4th of the total property since deceased was issueless - Widow of deceased pleaded that since one plot of land stood transferred during the lifetime of deceased under an agreement to sale and other property was also sold, nothing remained to be partitioned as matruka property - Since the Agreement to Sell has no value in the eyes of law, all the property that vested in deceased would become matruka property - Also, widow of deceased could have executed sale deed in respect of 1/4th share to which she was entitled and not the entire property - First appellate Court and High Court had rightly held that plaintiff's suit was maintainable and he would be entitled to 3/4th share as per Muhammedan Law. (Para 8, 9, 10, 14, 15)

(A) Administrative Tribunals Act (13 of 1985), S. 15 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Writ petition - Alternate remedy - Dispute pertained to rejection of certificates of certain candidates who had taken part in recruitment process and preparation of select list - Administrative Tribunals are empowered to deal with such disputes as the court of first instance - Such situation is not an exceptional situation to warrant intervention by High Court under its writ jurisdiction - Present case did not fall under category of an exceptional circumstance as the issue was restricted merely to 481 candidates whose inclusion in the select list was alleged to be illegal- Order of Division Bench of High Court holding that writ petitions before High Court were not maintainable and relegating matter to State Administrative Tribunal for adjudication was proper. (Para 29, 30, 31, 47)

(B) Administrative Tribunals Act (13 of 1985), S. 15 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Writ petition - Alternate remedy - Service matters - It is settled that where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Art.226 in matters falling squarely within domain of Tribunals - However, a writ petition may be maintainable in exceptional circumstances.

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art. 58, Art. 65 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O7, R. 11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Ground of limitation - Suit for declaration of ownership, possession and permanent injunction - While plaintiff claimed title through succession , defendants had set up a will executed by predecessor in interest of plaintiff - Neither plaint nor any document showed that Will was probated or its validity was adjudicated in regular civil proceedings - Mutation entries in favour of defendants on basis of said Will did not confer title and served only fiscal purposes - Mutation proceedings had culminated in 2017 and suit was instituted within three years thereafter- Further, relief of possession was also claimed in the suit - Where a suit is for possession of immovable property or any interest therein, based on title, the limitation period is 12 years when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff - To defeat the suit on the ground of adverse possession, burden would be on the defendant to prove adverse possession - Plaintiff had pleaded that will was contested in mutation proceedings till 2017 - Considering that mutation proceedings are summary in nature, institution of regular suit questioning the same was not ex facie barred by law - Rejection of plaint was erroneous (Para 16, 18, 23)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R. 11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Ground of limitation - Where several reliefs are sought in suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse to O. 7, R. 11(d). (Para 19)

(C) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R. 11(d), O.2, R. 2 - Rejection of plaint - Suit to include whole claim - First suit instituted by predecessor-in-interest of appellant was not tried and plaint of that suit was rejected under O. 7, R.11 as not being properly framed - A fresh suit with appropriate relief would not be prima facie, barred by O.2, R. 2. (Para 22)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Absorption in service - Right of waitlisted candidate - Post of Technician - Respondent was placed at Serial No.1 in Reserved Panel by noting that if any of three selected candidates did not join post, candidates placed in Reserved Panel would be appointed - All three selected candidates joined post - Any right that respondent could claim as a wait listed candidate was extinguished when all selected candidates joined on their respective posts - There was no vested right in respondent to urge that he was entitled to be considered and appointed on any fresh vacancy arising in future - Sole basis for claim of respondent for seeking absorption on post was statement made by State before tribunal that on a vacancy arising against SC quota, respondent would be absorbed - Said statement cannot operate in eternity contrary to Recruitment Rules - Said statement, if acted upon, would result in conferring benefit on a waitlisted candidate which he was not entitled to, as per law - Same was not permissible under the Recruitment Rules also - Order of High Court directing absorption of respondent on basis of concession made by State before tribunal, was set aside. (Para 11, 13, 14, 16, 17)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S 115 - Statement made before court - Concession on law - Binding nature of - Though a party making a statement before the Court is bound to comply with it, it must also be seen as to whether giving effect to such statement which was in the form of a concession, would result in violation of any statutory rules or regulations - If such consequence is likely to flow, it would be open for the affected party on whose behalf such concession was made, to place before the Court the correct position of law and urge that it may not be compelled to give effect to an erroneous concession made on law. (Para 17)

(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (30 of 2013), S. 26 - Acquisition of land - Compensation - Market value - Determination - Under the Act of 2013, method for arriving at the market value has been prescribed in Section 26(1)(b) read with Explanations 1 and 2 - Reference Court had relied on six registered sale transactions of lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired land and pertaining to the same period as the acquisition - Said sale transactions were not disputed - Exemplar sale deeds were of lands similarly situated, abutting the same approach road and possessing comparable potentiality for development - Reasonable adjustments were made keeping in view size of plots, their situation and the time-gap between sale instances and notification under Section 11 - Reference Court had properly applied methodology prescribed u/S. 26 of the Act of 2013 for determining market value with reference to the exemplar sale deeds and enhanced the compensation - High Court had erred in setting aside enhancement made in conformity with statutory provision. (Para 24-27)

(B) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (30 of 2013), S.27, S.28 - Rental compensation - Unauthorised occupation of land - Original Owner had not been deprived of possession or usage of the property all through - Documents on record showed that property had not been in exclusive possession of the Respondent Municipal Corporation - Actual physical possession of property prior to sale to the appellant was with original owner who had mortgaged it for obtaining loans and was involved in SARFAESI proceedings - It is settled law that grant of rental compensation is confined to cases involving unlawful and unauthorized occupation - Appellant's claim for rental compensation for the period prior to the purchase date 29.07.2011, was untenable - Appellant had purchased land after having been assured of the ownership in the light of the judicial orders and paid Rs.17,00,000/- for the land - Appellant would be entitled to compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the said amount from 29. 07.2011 till date of signing receipt for compensation. (Para 28-44)

(A) Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (26 of 1971), S. 3(2) - Vesting of private forests in State - Exemption from - Historical narrative and documents on record showed that in 1956-57 entire 37.50-acre plot was deforested and planted with coffee and cardamom by original owner - Fact that the land was planted up was evidenced by registrations of plantations with statutory bodies - Official records in subsequent years corroborated continuous plantation use - Agricultural Income tax assessments were made for the yields from land in question -Claim of State that portions of land lacked plantation on appointed day, was contrary to record - Expert had scientifically substantiated his opinion by reference to observable physical indicators on the plants - No evidence was adduced by State in rebuttal - In vesting matters, once the claimant produces substantial evidence of cultivation, slight gaps or doubts should not negate the claim, especially if the claimant's version is inherently probable and the State has largely left it uncountered - Genuine cultivators should not be made to fight a prolonged battle to vindicate rights that are apparent from the public records - Suit lands were under personal cultivation on appointed day and the owner held them under valid title deed with the intent of cultivation. (Para 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 47)

(B) Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act (26 of 1971), S. 3(2), S. 3(3) - Vesting of private forests in State - Exemption from - Bar of ceiling on holdings - Applicability - Original owner held 37.50 acres of plantation land on appointed day - As a plantation, entire extent of land would be exempt from land ceiling altogether as per S. 81 of the KLR Act - Even if ceiling limit of 15 acres was to be strictly imposed on original owner, property was part of a Marumakkathayam tavazhi of family acquired in name of individual member - In matrilineal or joint families, ceiling must be computed based on family unit - Evidence on record indicated that the property was treated as part of family pool with at least 10 members in the tavazhi - A family could retain up to 75 acres under the Land Reforms ceiling - The ceiling condition would not bar the appellants' claim for exemption. (Para 42, 43)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Motor accident - Compensation for death claim - Determination - Since age of deceased at the time of accident was 27 years, multiplier of 17 adopted by High Court was proper - However, High Court had erred in excluding allowances from salary for determining the multiplicand - Income as determined by tribunal after including allowances was proper - Since it was not demonstrated that the allowances received were exempt from income tax , same were included in annual income and tax payable in the relevant year was deducted accordingly - Deceased was aged below 40 years at the time of accident - Deceased was an Engineer employed with a public sector undertaking - Addition of future prospects made by tribunal at the rate of 50% was proper - High Court had erred in reducing it to 40% - Deduction of 50% was made towards personal expenses - Compensation payable under conventional heads such as loss of filial consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses was determined at the rate specified in Pranay Sethi as the accident was of the year 2011 - Compensation was determined accordingly (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3, S. 106 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 304B, S. 498A, S. 201 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Acquittal of accused - Legality - Accused father-in-law and husband of deceased had allegedly committed murder of deceased for non-fulfillment of dowry demand - Medical evidence established that unnatural death of deceased was not accidental but homicidal - Death had occurred inside house occupied by accused - Version of accused that he had gone to field was not substantiated by any witness - FIR lodged by accused himself had established his presence in house at relevant time - Deliberate lodging of a false report of electrocution by accused, attempt to mislead investigation, strained relations between son of accused and his daughter-in-law and persistent demands for dowry had formed chain pointing to guilt of accused - Burden was on accused to explain circumstances under which deceased had died, which he failed to discharge - Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had caused death of deceased by strangulation - Appeal as regards acquittal of husband by High Court, was already dismissed - Judgment of Trial Court, in so far as it pertained to conviction and sentence of accused father-in-law, was restored. (Para 19, 20, 21)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of complaint - Prima facie case - Offences of cheating and forgery in furtherance of criminal conspiracy - Allegation that accused, a General category candidate, obtained Scheduled Caste ('Sansi') certificate from Sub-Divisional Officer, for the purpose of contesting election to Assembly Constituency reserved for scheduled caste - Subsequently, Scrutiny Committee had directed forfeiture of caste certificate - It was clearly alleged in complaint that accused persons belonged to General category and always held out themselves to be belonging to General category and only for the purpose of contesting election as a reserved candidate , submitted documents and affidavits and panchnama for obtaining the caste certificate - Complaint also contained allegations of forgery having been practiced for obtaining the certificate - Accused was beneficiary and caste certificate was the "property" which was obtained by deceiving authorities - Prima facie offences of cheating and forgery in furtherance of criminal conspiracy were made out - High Court had erred in quashing complaint (Para 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.118 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.363, S.366, S.376, S.377 - Kidnapping and rape - Testimony of prosecutrix - Prosecutrix, aged about 15 yrs, had specifically stated in her deposition about commission of rape and unnatural sex by accused - Prosecutrix stated that when she reached her friend's house, accused took her in a bus to the house of his cousin i.e. co-accused, where offence was committed - Testimony of prosecutrix was trustworthy - Medical evidence did not rule out possibility of rape upon prosecutrix - Even assuming prosecutrix to be consenting party, her consent was immaterial since she was a minor - Conviction was proper (Para 11, 14, 15, 16)

(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S. 3(2)(v) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 4 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 45 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 366, S. 376, S. 506 - Kidnapping and rape on minor belonging to scheduled caste - Appreciation of evidence - Accused had allegedly lured away minor girl by promising to marry her and subjected her to sexual intercourse - Minor stated that she knew accused and when she had left house to serve food to her grandfather who lived a little away from their house, accused grabbed her, pressed her mouth and threatened to kill her when she tried to scream - Minor deposed that accused told her that she would be made his wife and undressed her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse - Minor deposed that accused took her to the house of her maternal uncle in village and left her there - Minor maintained her version in cross-examination - Father of minor corroborated prosecution story - Grandfather of minor confirmed fact that she came to his house in night along with food and after serving food left for her house -Doctor who examined minor deposed that there was a cut injury on hymen and opined that same would indicate that forceful intercourse was committed- Evidence showed that minor was kidnapped for purpose of illicit intercourse, was subjected to forcible intercourse and criminal intimidation with the knowledge that she was a member of Scheduled Caste - Conviction was proper. (Para 7, 8, 13, 25)

(B) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S. 3(2)(v) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 4 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 366, S. 376, S. 506 - Kidnapping and rape on minor belonging to scheduled caste - Proof of age of victim - Accused had allegedly lured away minor girl by promising to marry her and subjected her to sexual intercourse - Teacher at Govt. Primary School proved that admission register of school showed date of birth of minor to be 15.09.2004 - Evidence of father of minor, teacher and school admission register seized and marked by teacher, inspired confidence to hold that on date of incident i e on 14.05.2018, victim was a minor. (Para 16, 17, 18)

(C) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S. 3(2)(v), S. 8(c) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 4 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 366, S. 376, S. 506 - Kidnapping and rape on minor belonging to scheduled caste - Applicability of SC/ST Act - Accused had allegedly lured away minor girl by promising to marry her and subjected her to sexual intercourse - Witness deposed that minor belonged to scheduled caste and produced caste certificate - Minor had deposed that she belonged to scheduled caste and accused knew about her caste before incident - Father of minor stated that accused was their neighbour and used to frequently visit their house, which made him suspicious that he might have been involved in abduction of his daughter - Grandfather of minor confirmed that the accused used to come to their village and work as a labourer - Consistent statements of prosecution witnesses collectively demonstrated that accused had prior familiarity with minor's family and knowledge of their caste- Nothing was brought on record to rebut presumption arising u/S. 8 of the Act - S.3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was attracted. (Para 21, 24)

(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S. 5A - Land acquisition - Restoration of land - Claim for parity - Respondent company had prayed for parity with cultivators to whom acquired land was restored in terms of judgment delivered in Kedar Nath Yadav by which the acquisition was quashed - Restoration remedy in Kedar Nath was conceived for disadvantaged farming communities and not as general restitution for all affected parties - Respondent was not entitled to benefit of said remedy, being a company which operated a big manufacturing facility employing over 100 workers - Despite possessing financial resources and institutional access, respondent failed to pursue appellate remedies on rejection of it's objections - Respondent had accepted entire compensation without protest and remained passive for a decade - While respondent allowed proceedings to conclude and possession was taken without challenge, cultivators had filed PIL at earliest opportunity - Respondent was not entitled to seek parity and question what had been conclusively settled - Order passed by High Court for restoration of land was set aside. (Para 24, 25, 26)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 136 - Investigation by CBI - Direction for - Matter pertained to orders passed by High Court in various petitions relating to incident of stampede / crowd crush which occurred during a political rally and in which 41 innocent lives were lost and more than 100 persons were injured - Since the issue concerned fundamental rights of citizens and the incident had shaken the national conscience, fair and impartial investigation was needed - By way of interim measure, direction was issued to handover the investigation to CBI.

(A) Constitution of India, Art.20(3) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.349 - Voice sample - Order for collection of - Legality - Order of Magistrate permitting voice sample test was set aside by High Court on ground that similar question was referred to a Larger Bench - Said reference had already been closed - Plea that collection of voice sample would lead to infringement of right of witness under Art.20(3), which on comparison of the voice sample could result in arraigning witness as an accused - Supreme Court has held that Magistrate can direct a person to give voice sample even in absence of express provision in CrPC - 'Person' would include accused as well as witness - Presently, power to order a person to give voice sample has been specifically incorporated in S 349 BNSS - Mere furnishing of a sample would not incriminate the person - Order of Magistrate was restored. (Para 8, 9, 10)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.239 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.420 , S.406, S.34 - Discharge of accused - Rejection of prayer for - Challenge against - FIR was lodged against father of appellant alleging that he had agreed to sell plot of land to informant, accepted part consideration for same but refused to register and execute sale deed - Only allegation against appellant was that subsequently he had purchased said plot from his father - When transaction between informant and original accused had taken place, appellant was minor - It was not the case of informant that appellant had made any representation or there was any inducement on the part of appellant- Ingredients of offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC were not made out as against appellant - Rejection of application for discharge was erroneous - Proceedings as against appellant , were quashed (Para 9, 10, 11)

(A) Army Act (46 of 1950), S.69, S.63 - Armed Forces Tribunal Act (55 of 2007), S.15(6) - Appeal against court martial -Substitution of punishment - An Army commandant was found by GCM to be guilty of charges of corruption and possession of ammunition - On appeal, Tribunal found the charge of corruption to have not been proved - Conviction under Arms Act was also found to be not sustainable as the evidence did not support possession of ammunition without license - However, finding on same charge was substituted and appellant was held guilty of act prejudicial to good order and discipline - In taking a lenient view on established fact of recovery of ammunition on the basis of evidence on record , tribunal had modified punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement - Tribunal had exercised its discretion under Section 15(6) of the 2007 Act in a just and proportionate manner balancing disciplinary needs of service with fairness to the individual - No interference in exercise of said discretion was warranted. (Para 24,25,26,27)

(A) Employee's Compensation Act (8 of 1923), S. 3, S. 19 - Employees' compensation - Liability of insurer - S. 3 of the 1923 Act fixes liability to pay compensation on an employer - However, where the liability of an employer is covered by contract of insurance, exclusion of the insurer from being jointly and severally liable would have deleterious effect on very purpose of the legislation - By virtue of power to determine liability u/S. 19, Commissioner would have power to make the insurer jointly and severally liable with the employer to pay compensation if the same falls within the scope of the contract of insurance - There was no dispute regarding liability of insurance company under insurance contract - High Court erred in adopting hyper technical approach in shifting liability on employer alone - Appropriate course was to make employer and insurer jointly and severally liable - Award of Commissioner was restored by which insurer was held liable to pay compensation - Also, insurer was criticised for unnecessarily filing appeal and was directed to compensate workman with costs of Rs.50,000/-. (Para 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20)

(B) Trusts Act (2 of 1882), S. 3, S. 13 - Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138, S. 142 - Cheque dishonour - Complaint against trustee - Omission to implead trust - Complaint u/S.138 NI Act filed against trustee for dishonour of cheque issued on behalf of trust was dismissed on ground of non-joinder of trust - When a cause of action arises due to an alleged dishonour of cheque and a complaint is initiated under the NI Act, the same is maintainable against the Trustee who has signed the cheque, without the requirement to array the Trust also as an accused - Trust deed showed that funds and properties of trust were managed and dealt with only through its trustees - Trust has no independent legal status - Dismissal of complaint was erroneous

(A) Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules (2012), R. 4, R. 21 - Constitution of India, Art. 309 - Termination of service - Legality - Services of appellants teachers were terminated on the ground that they were ineligible having secured less than 40% marks in intermediate examination - For calculating the percentage of marks secured by the appellants in the intermediate examination, department relied on R 21 of Rules of 2012 and did not take into account marks secured by appellants in respective vocational subjects - Method of calculation of percentage, as provided on the reverse of marksheet provided for including marks secured in vocational subjects - R 21 applies only for preparing "Merit List" - Rule 4 provides for an eligibility criteria for the purpose of appearing in Teacher Eligibility Test - Rule 4 does not provide for exclusion of marks secured in vocational subjects - In the absence of a bar or an alternate method provided by any law, method provided on the marksheet has to be followed - Appellants would be eligible if said method was to be applied - Termination orders were set aside. (Para 24, 28, 29, 36)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Termination of service - Violation of principles of natural justice - Show cause notices issued to appellant teachers questioned their eligibility on the ground that they had not secured minimum of 45% marks in intermediate examination - In their replies appellants had stated that since they belonged to scheduled tribe category, they were required to secure minimum of 40% marks which they had secured - Department computed marks after excluding marks secured in vocational subject - Marks computed by following said method were less than 40% - Services of appellants were terminated - Show cause notice did not allege that appellants had failed to secure 40% marks , after exclusion of marks secured in the vocational subject - Appellants had no opportunity to explain why the marks secured in the vocational subject should be taken into account for determining their overall percentage - Termination orders were vitiated being in violation of the principles of natural justice . (Para 32, 36)

(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (56 of 2000), S.7A (As amended by Act 33 of 2006), S.15(1)(g) - Constitution of India, Art.32 - Release of juvenile - Permissibility - Admittedly petitioner was a child at the time of commission of offence in 1981 - Petitioner had undergone incarceration of more than three years - Juvenile justice Act, 2000 was applicable to petitioner as per law declared by Supreme Court - Liberty of petitioner had been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law - Petitioner was entitled to be released. (Para 7, 8, 12, 13)

(A) Railways Act (24 of 1989), S. 124A, S. 123(c) - Railway claims - Untoward incident - Bona fide passenger - It was alleged that due to overcrowding, deceased was pushed out of running train resulting in fatal head injuries - Claim petition was dismissed on ground that claimants failed to prove that deceased was bona fide passenger as no ticket was recovered from his person or belongings, and photocopy of tickets was considered doubtful as there was no seizure memo and investigating officer was not examined - Initial burden to prove that deceased had travelled in train was discharged by sworn statement made by wife of deceased - Relying on report of DRM, High Court had concluded that death of deceased would fall within purview of expression 'untoward incident' - Railway ticket which formed part of police report stood unrebutted - Chief Booking Supervisor had verified ticket produced along with report of police and certified that ticket had been issued from Indore Station - Same was sufficient to hold that deceased was a bona fide passenger - It is settled that the absence of formal seizure or witness examination does not, by itself, negate bona fide travel when other material evidence substantiate the claim - Supreme Court declared that the absence of formal seizure or witness examination does not, by itself, negate bona fide travel when other material evidence substantiates the claim - Respondents were liable to pay compensation. (Para 12, 13, 15, 16)

(A) Electricity Act (9 of 1910), S. 39, S. 44 - Theft of electricity and tampering with electric-meter - Presumption regarding - Applicability - Noticing a mismatch between units of electricity supplied to factories and readings taken from the meter, an inspection was carried out which allegedly revealed that the meter had been tampered with, and the box in which it was placed had 3 holes - Prosecution relied heavily on statutory presumption against consumer - For the presumption to arise, Electricity Board ought to have established that an artificial means had been employed in committing the theft - Testimonies of most of the prosecution witnesses in this regard, were based on estimation, presumption, approximation or possibilities - Said testimonies were wholly unreliable - Presumption against consumer could not have been raised - Investigators also failed to carry out a practical exercise to check alleged injury or tampering to meter, leaving open too many possibilities - High Court had erred in reversing acquittal (Para 13, 15, 16, 17)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 8, R. 1(1) Proviso, (as amended by Commercial Courts Act of 2015), O. 5, R. 1(1) Second Proviso (as amended by Commercial Courts Act of 2015) - Commercial suit - Failure to file written statement - Right to cross-examination - Summons was served to defendant on 17.07.2021 - Excluding date of service, statutory period of 120 days commenced from 18.07.2021 and ended on 14.11.2021 - Both dates fell within period between 15.02.2020 to 28.02.2022 when nation was in grip of global pandemic of COVID-19 - Supreme Court had passed orders to exclude the period commencing from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purpose of computing limitation under any general or special laws - During said period on 24.11.2021, defendant had filed application for seeking enlargement of time to file written submission and subsequently had filed another application seeking permission to file written submission enclosing written submission - Also, after the examination-in-chief of plaintiff was closed, the cross-examination of Defendant was taken as "Nil" on the ground that defendant had failed to file their written statement- Said reason was perverse and was contrary to right of defence available to defendant - Matter was remanded to trial court to dispose of same after allowing defendant to file written statement subject to payment of costs and to permit defendant to exercise his right of cross-examination of witness of plaintiff. (Para 30, 31, 32)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.147 - Motor accident - Liability to pay compensation - Legality of 'pay and recover' directions - Owner of truck involved in the accident had challenged "pay and recover" directions granted to the insurance company which had insured the truck - High Court had found that driver of offending vehicle had produced a fake driving licence - Finding was also recorded that owner had colluded with driver - Owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether the licence is fake or not - Insurance company had failed to show absence of due diligence in the employment of driver or entrustment of vehicle, to prove breach of condition, by insured - Inferring collusion between employer and employee merely because driving licence was produced by employer and driver did not contest the claim, was erroneous - Order of High Court, to the extent of grant of 'pay and recover' rights to the insurer, was set aside. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18)

(A) Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act (35 of 1972), S.17 - Open Space Reservation (OSR) charges - Quashing of demand - Challenge against - Plea by Development Authority that property must be viewed as part of original 21-grounds estate - Partition deeds, executed prior to 05 August 1975, when First Master Plan came into force , were unimpeached - Issuance of pattas showed official acknowledgment of an independent parcel - Subject plot measured only 2229 sq. metres which was less than the 3000 sq. metre exemption limit under Development Regulations and no layout was formed - High Court had rightly quashed demand and directed refund of amount deposited. (Para 14-20)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528 - Recall of order - Powers of High Court - Criminal writ petition seeking transfer of investigation to CBI was dismissed as withdrawn - Subsequent petition filed u/S 528 with identical prayers was dismissed with liberty to make representation to Superintendent of Police - Subsequently, on complainant's application for "modification" of order, High Court recalled its earlier order citing clerical mistake and transferred investigation to CBI - Observation made in recall order about clerical mistake in earlier order was contrary to record - A criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment except to correct clerical error - In fact, once first petition was dismissed, another petition seeking same relief, styling it to be a petition under Section 528 BNSS could not have been entertained - Orders of recall and transfer of investigation, were quashed, being without jurisdiction. (Para 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 7, S. 8 - Constitution of India, Art. 22 (1) - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 376, S. 302 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 193, S. 232 - Kidnapping, sexual assault on minor and murder - Right to fair trial - Denial of - Record showed that trial was conducted in a lopsided manner - Accused was unrepresented when charges were framed - Documents relied upon by prosecution and services of legal aid counsel were provided to accused only four days before recording of evidence commenced - Services of counsel were not provided in time to allow for effective preparation and for cross-examination of 30 witnesses - Trial Court failed to undertake mandatory exercise of seeking reports on mitigating/aggravating circumstances, psychological examination and jail conduct of accused before awarding death penalty on very day of conviction - Constitutional right to effective defence and fair trial requires providing all documents, ensuring representation by an experienced counsel with sufficient time to prepare and vigilant role of court during recording of evidence - Principles of fair trial and constitutional rights of accused who was facing serious charges, were violated - Accused was entitled to be acquitted (Para 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40))

(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 7, S. 8 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 376, S. 302 - Kidnapping, sexual assault on minor and murder - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Witness had deposed that he had seen minor victim playing with accused and his dog on second floor of building one hour before victim was reported missing - Complaint lodged by informant did not mention that anyone had seen child in company of accused - Witness had divulged such critical information to IO for the first time more than two months and 20 days after incident - Testimony of witness of last seen circumstance was bereft of credibility - Circumstance of last seen together appeared to have been created by IO to prop up an otherwise weak prosecution case - Circumstance of last seen was not proved (Para 44, 45, 46)

(C) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 7, S. 8 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 65B - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 376, S. 302 - Kidnapping, sexual assault on minor and murder - Electronic evidence - CCTV footage - Prosecution relied on CCTV camera footage from a nearby temple, which allegedly captured suspicious movements of accused on motorbike carrying body of victim in a travel bag - Primary evidence of said footage was not made available on record - Adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution for withholding a vital piece of evidence - Material contradictions were also noted between statements of witnesses - While informant claimed that police informed him about footage on 7th February 2017, temple in-charge claimed that he and informant watched footage together one day before - Alleged timeframe captured by footage was a very short window for the entire sequence of events including abducting, ravishing, murdering the seven-year-old victim, packing the body and transporting it on a motorbike, to have taken place - Considering failure to collect vital primary evidence, material discrepancies between statements of witnesses and total silence of IO about having seen the footage, no credence could be given to the oral evidence regarding the CCTV footage (Para 47, 48, 49, 50, 51)

(D) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 7, S.8 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 27 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 376, S. 302 - Kidnapping, sexual assault on minor and murder - Recovery evidence - Prosecution relied on alleged confessional/disclosure statement of accused leading to incriminating discoveries - Credibility of disclosure was destroyed by testimony of Village Administrative Officer, who was informed on day of confession regarding precise nature of the forthcoming confession before confession was even recorded - This prior knowledge was corroborated by testimony of informant that IO shared minute details of murder with him before formal statement - Thus, confession was coerced and extracted earlier during illegal detention - IO failed to seize undergarments of accused, which was normal practice in such cases and to establish ownership of mobile - Entire disclosure and the recovery process was highly doubtful (Para 58 to 61, 63, 64, 67, 68)

(E) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 7, S. 8 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 45 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 376, S. 302 - Kidnapping, sexual assault on minor and murder - Medical evidence - DNA sample analysis - IOs failed to provide any indication in their evidence about observance of mandatory protocol regarding seizing, sealing, storing and transportation of samples - Specifically, there was no proof of sealing packets with signatures, Malkhana In-charge was not examined and no forwarding documents or witnesses were produced - Break in chain of custody vitiated sanctity of samples right from seizure stage until they reached FSL - There was serious doubt regarding collection of blood sample of accused, which was done four months after his arrest without any justification for delay, raising possibility of manipulation - Though FSL report concluded that DNA profile of semen stain on underwear of victim matched blood sample of accused, very factum of recovery of undergarment itself was not established beyond doubt and chain of custody was breached - DNA profiling reports could not be relied upon to sustain conviction (Para 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79)

(F) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 7, S. 8 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 376, S. 302 - Kidnapping, sexual assault on minor and murder - Circumstantial evidence - Allegation that accused person kidnapped 7 years old victim , sexually assaulted her and smothered her to death - Prosecution case rested purely on circumstantial evidence - Entire edifice of prosecution case, rested upon four vital circumstances, last seen together theory, suspicious movement of accused seen in CCTV footage, confessional/disclosure statement leading to recoveries and FSL reports - None of said circumstances was proved beyond all doubt - Both Trial Court and High Court glossed over patent infirmities and loopholes in prosecution case - Chain of circumstances was not complete - Accused was entitled to acquittal. (Para 80, 81, 82)

(A) Stamp Act (2 of 1899), S. 2(17), Art. 57, Sch. 1-B, Art. 40, Sch. 1-B - Levy of stamp duty - Classification of financial instruments - In matters of stamp duty, decisive factor is not the nomenclature assigned to the instrument, but the substance of rights and obligations it embodies - Instruments in question were styled as "Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed" but operative recitals and clauses of the deed fulfilled all the requirements of a mortgage deed - In the absence of any surety, to attract Article 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, the deed executed could not be termed as a security bond - Provisions of Article 40 of the Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, were rightly applied for levying stamp duty

(B) Stamp Act (2 of 1899), Art.57 Sch. 1-B - Levy of stamp duty - Security bond cum mortgage deed - Applicability of Article 57 of Stamp Act - Development Authority and appellant company were the only two parties involved in execution of the instrument - Deed was not executed by a surety but by the principal debtor i e appellant company itself, through its director - A company, though a juristic person, is not a sentient being, consequently, it must act through its directors - Properties were not mortgaged by a third party, but by the principal debtor itself - In the absence of any surety, the deed could not be termed as a security bond - Article 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, would not apply. (Para 25, 26)

(A) Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules (2017), R.2(1)(g), R.4 - Environment Protection Act (29 of 1986), S.25 - Constitution of India, Art.226 - P I L - Construction near waterbody - Challenge against - Case of petitioners before High Court was that 'Futala Lake' was a 'wetland' and it ought to be protected for its environmental value and that the constructions which were made thereat were of permanent nature - Features of the lake and historical facts on record showed that it was a man-made waterbody constructed for drinking water and for irrigation purpose - Definition of wetland in 2017 Rules excludes humanmade waterbodies and those constructed inter alia for irrigation purposes - Restrictions of activity in the 'wetland' under the Rules of 2017 would not apply stricto sensu to Futala Lake - However, applying the restrictions and rigours of Rule 4 of 2017 Rules and in ensuring its relevance to the waterbodies or wetlands, even if they are not covered within the statutory definition, there is a recognition of precautionary principle and doctrine of public trust - Record showed that construction of floating restaurant, banquet and platform, banyan tree meant to be screen for 3D show, could not be categorized as permanent construction - Directions issued to Municipal Corporation not to raise any structure of permanent nature within lake and not to carry out any activities that would cause damage to Lake were held to be balancing exercise and eminently proper - Further directions issued by High Court that Municipal Corporation would keep entire waterbed along with its recreational and beautification structures clean and properly maintained were also justified (Para 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.4, 5.3.1, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7)

(B) DOCTRINE, Doctrine of Public Trust - Doctrine of Public trust - Applicability - Man-made waterbodies - Public Trust doctrine aims to preserve and conserve natural resources like air, water, objects of nature to be applied for public good and collective societal interest and natural bodies of various kinds on earth - Public Trust doctrine would extend to even man-made or artificially created natural objects, waterbodies, lakes, wetlands, etc. which were drawn and created from nature or natural resources - Human activities which are in tune with nature and ecology or which are designed for creating healthy environment are required to be guided and protected by legal measures - It is not only responsibility on part of citizens, but authorities are also equally enjoined to ensure that doctrine of public trust in sphere of nature and ecology is applied and furthered (Para 6, 7, 8, 9)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Identity of accused - After a quarrel about digging in field, accused chased victim and inflicted blows with swords and Kanta upon him, due to which he died on spot - Primary witness was independent party and wife of owner of house where murder occurred after victim entered it while being chased by accused - Said witness testified to have seen three unknown persons assault victim with swords, but could not identify the assailants - Trustworthy account of said witness directly contradicted testimony of related witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed assault inside house after chasing accused - Clothes of informant allegedly stained with blood after hugging victim were neither seized by police nor offered for investigation - Informant and another witness appeared to be chance witnesses - Prosecution failed to conduct Test identification parade or call lady of the house where murder took place, to identify accused - Considering striking contradictions in testimonies of independent witness and related witnesses, identity of accused as real assailants was not established (Para 13 to 25)

(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 27 - Murder - Recovery evidence - Reliability - One sword was recovered from a garage and another sword and Kanta were recovered from bushes in an open sugarcane field, allegedly on pointing out of accused - Prosecution failed to establish evidentiary link between recovered weapons and the crime - Forensic laboratory report was not produced to prove that recovered weapons were actually used in crime - Only that part of the statement that distinctly leads the police to the recovery of the weapons was admissible and part alleging that recovered weapons were weapons of crime, could not be read against accused - Recovery evidence could not be relied on (Para 28, 29, 31, 34)

(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Chance witness - Testimony of - Evidentiary value - Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident is doubtful should be discarded, or at least be treated with great caution and close scrutiny - Such a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of incident. (Para 26)

(D) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Interference by High Court - Scope - Offence of murder - Order of acquittal passed by Trial Court is generally not open to interference, unless findings recorded are per se perverse or erroneous - High Court had manifestly erred in reversing finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court without first coming to conclusion that findings of Trial Court were perverse - There was significant doubt as to whether offence had been committed by accused - Accused were entitled to benefit of doubt (Para 35, 36)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.11(6), S.12(5) (As amended by Act 3 of 2016) - Appointment of arbitrator - Amendment in statute - Effects on arbitration clause - Clause of GCC which governed arbitration mechanism named Managing Director or officer nominated by him to be the arbitrator - By virtue of subsequent amendments in the 1996 Act, Managing Director or officer nominated by him became ineligible by the operation of law - Core of the contract regarding referring the dispute for adjudication to arbitrator would not be rendered nugatory merely because procedure for appointment of arbitrator became inoperative due to amendment in statute - Party would be entitled to apply under S.11(6) of 1996 Act for appointment of arbitrator and court has power to appoint an arbitrator upon filing of such application. (Para 18, 20, 26)

(B) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art.137 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.11(6) - Appointment of arbitrator - Application for - Bar of limitation - Period of limitation to file application under S.11(6) of 1996 Act started from 21.04.2018 when final bill raised had become due - Application ought to have been filed within three years from said date i.e. on or before 21.04.2021 - Application filed on 15.03.2022, was beyond the period of limitation - However, in view of COVID-19 pandemic, Supreme Court had passed order for excluding period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, for the purpose of limitation - Application was not barred by limitation. (Para 22, 23, 24)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 149 - Murder and unlawful assembly - Proof - Accused persons, members of unlawful assembly, with common object, had allegedly assaulted informant parties to forcibly dispossess them from settlement land resulting in death and injuries to several persons - Prosecution relied on evidence of five injured eye-witnesses, and two eye-witnesses to occurrence - Injuries on eyewitnesses, at the best, may ensure their presence at scene of occurrence but that was not enough to convict them for committing offence - Court should believe the presence or participation of only those accused as may be satisfactorily established with the aid of at least two reliable witnesses - Oral evidence of injured eyewitness, on whose police statement the FIR was registered stood at variance with his fardbeyan -Eye-witnesses in their police statements recorded under S. 161 of Cr.P.C. had gone to the extent of implicating even those persons who were ultimately not arrayed as accused in charge-sheet including those who ultimately came to be acquitted by trial Court - Oral testimonies of witnesses neither corroborated each other nor aligned with medical records - Testimonies of witnesses suffered from various contradictions in form of material omissions which struck at root of matter - Ocular version of eye-witnesses contradicted medical evidence - Prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction was set aside. (Para 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 82, 83)

(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 149 - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Scope of - Discussed.

(C) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 149 - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Innocent bystanders - A mere bystander, to whom no specific role was attributed, would not fall within ambit of S. 149 of IPC - Prosecution has to establish, through reasonably direct or indirect circumstances, that accused persons shared a common object of unlawful assembly.

(D) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 149 - Unlawful assembly - Conviction as member of - Rule of prudence - Explained. (Para .)

(E) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Injured eye-witness - Testimony of - Evaluation of - Principle for - Explained.

(F) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 154, S. 161 - Injured eye-witness - Statement of - Whether can be treated as FIR - FIR must reflect information furnished by informant at the very time it was presented - Test for an information to qualify as an FIR lies in whether it was capable of supplying grounds for police officer to suspect commission of a cognizable offence - Once requirement is met, officer is bound to reduce it into writing - Sequence of events indicated that other eye-witnesses would have disclosed commission of alleged offence to police - Very first statement relating to two homicidal deaths ought to have been treated as FIR - Evidence of injured eye-witnesses and Medical Officer indicated that information about commission of offence had reached the police much prior to recording of statement of informant/injured eyewitness at hospital - Statement of informant cannot be treated as FIR - Said statement would be a police statement recorded under S. 161 of Cr.P.C. (Para 84, 85, 86, 89, 90)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 21, R. 97 - Delivery of possession - Resistance to - Under an agreement to sell, appellant had been put in possession of property - Suit for permanent injunction filed by appellant was dismissed - Suit for specific performance was held by Supreme Court to have been barred under O. 2 R. 2 of the CPC - In facts of case, an amount of Rupees Two Crores was ordered to be paid to the appellant in lieu of earnest money of Rs.25,000 - Since appellant refused to accept amount and deliver possession, warrants of possession were issued - Appellant was an unscrupulous litigant who resisted delivery of possession merely because fact of possession was not pointed out at the time of hearing - Once it had been held that no relief could be granted for specific performance and an extraordinary amount had been awarded to compensate the meagre amount of advance only to adjust the equities, appellant had no right to resist possession - Executing Court and High Court had taken correct view in directing for issuance of warrants of possession - Costs of Rs 10,00,000 were imposed on appellant. (Para 10, 11, 14, 16)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.41, Rr. 33, 22 - Modification of decree - Powers of appellate court - Plaintiff had prayed for declaration of title on basis of oral gift and also cancellation of sale deeds in favour of defendants - Trial court had granted the relief of permanent injunction and held that plaintiff's ownership of 3/4th share in her mother's property was proved - Appellate Court enhanced her share by including 10 acres allegedly gifted by her mother through hiba and 3/4th share in the remaining property - High Court had erred in disturbing a finding of fact resulting in modification of decree without there being an appeal/cross-appeal - In facts of case, findings of High Court were not tenable to the said extent (Para 17, 18, 21)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 60 - Oral evidence - Reliability - Opinion expressed by conduct of any person as a member of family or of any person otherwise has special means of knowledge on subject is a relevant fact and said testimony remains as direct evidence under S. 60. (Para 26.2)

(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 50, S. 60, S. 73 - Relationship between persons - Appreciation of evidence - Plaintiff claimed to be daughter of 'K' and her husband 'A' - Plaintiff had examined one person allegedly related to the family from 'K' s side and another from 'A' s side - Trial court had rightly held that opinions on Plaintiff's relationship were admissible under Section 50 of the Evidence Act because they were people with special means of knowledge about the relationship of the Plaintiff with deceased 'K' - Trial Court accepted the relationship based upon a document which was contested by the Plaintiff, and compared the signature to a document disputed by the Defendants - Credibility of witnesses' opinion was not independently assessed - Possibility of bias on account of witnesses being close relatives of plaintiff was not considered - Plaintiff and witnesses, had withheld documents like school-leaving records, ration card, etc. , in their possession - Approach of both the courts below in appreciating evidence regarding relationship, was erroneous (Para 29, 31, 31.1, 31.2, 32, 33)

(D) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 50 - Opinion on relationship - Proof of status or relationship need not always necessarily be through documentary evidence, but, when oral evidence is the basis on which the opinion is required to be formed by a Court, the Courts are allowed to treat an opinion on conduct about a relationship as only a relevant fact and this should not be confused with 'as factum probandum'. (Para 33)

(E) Mohammedan Law, - Oral gift - Essentials of - Enumerated.

(F) Mohammedan Law, - Oral gift and effect of valid oral gift - Discussed.

(G) Mohammedan Law, - Oral gift - Validity - Possession -Claim of plaintiff based on oral gift by donor-mother was contradicted by donor's subsequent act of seeking mutation of her own name for entire property, casting doubt on prior divestment - After death of donor, name of her husband was mutated and plaintiff never sought mutation in her own name - Possession being essential for a valid oral gift, revenue records consistently showing possession of defendants and plaintiff's self-serving, uncorroborated oral evidence rendered her claim untenable - Memorandum of gift did not evidence a valid past transaction or possession - Hiba should be acted upon by completing all three essential requirements in public knowledge rather than in secrecy - Claim of plaintiff on the basis of Hiba, failed for want of evidence on possession (Para 38, 39)

(H) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art. 58, Art. 59 - Suit for declaration of ownership and cancellation of sale deeds - Limitation - Declaratory relief for title based on oral gift and successorship of Plaintiff and relief of cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of defendants would be governed by Arts. 58 and 59 respectively of the Limitation Act - Plaintiff had failed to apply for mutation at many available opportunities, asserting her right as transferee of the Suit Property from her mother - Plaintiff had also failed to challenge maintenance of ROR, or registered sale deeds, within the time stipulated by law - Plaintiff's conduct for about 23 years indicated failure to use the care that a reasonably prudent person would use - Sale deeds were registered - Knowledge through constructive notice was imputed - Suit was barred by limitation (Para 41, 42, 43, 43.2, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)

(A) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (32 of 1956), S. 8 - Transfer of immovable property by guardian - Mode of repudiation by minor - It is not always necessary for minor on attaining majority, to institute suit within limitation provided, for cancellation of voidable sale transaction executed by his guardian - Such transactions can be avoided or repudiated by his conduct.

(B) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (32 of 1956), S. 8 - Transfer of immovable property by guardian - Repudiation by minor -Effect - Father/ guardian of minor sons sold subject plot to K without obtaining Court permission, who later sold it to N/ subsequent purchaser - On attainment of majority, surviving minors had sold said plot to S - Title suit was filed by N against S - There was no material on record that minors had knowledge of execution of sale deed by their father - Admittedly, based on sale deed executed by father of minors, purchaser or subsequent purchasers did not enter into possession and name of minors continued to appear in revenue records - Sale by minors was sufficient repudiation of sale executed by their father - Plaintiff had failed to enter witness box to testify and prove her plaint case - Since sale deed executed by father was repudiated by the minors within time on attaining majority, no valid right or title stood transferred to K from whom N had allegedly purchased the suit land - Plaintiff was not entitled to relief. (Para 32, 38, 40, 41)

(A) U. P. Trade Tax Act (15 of 1948), S. 3F, S. 2(d), S. 2(h), S. 2(m) - Levy of Trade tax - Legality - Trade tax was levied u/S. 3F of U P trade Tax Act, 1948 on the value of ink, processing material and packing material used for executing the printing work of lottery tickets - Admittedly, contract for printing lottery tickets was a works contract - "The works" referred to the final, tangible printed ticket - The taxable event, or the "deemed sale", occurred at the moment the ink was applied to the paper - Same constituted "incorporation in the works", as the ink and the chemicals were involved in the execution of the work contract and became a part of the lottery ticket - In the process, there was tangible transfer of diluted ink, a composite good comprising both the ink and the processing chemicals - Conditions necessary for imposition of tax u/S 3F were fulfilled since a works contract existed for printing of lottery tickets, ink and chemicals were involved in execution of the works contract, and property in the ink and chemicals was transferred in execution of works contract - Levy of tax u/S. 3F(1)(b) of the Act, 1948 on the ink and processing material was proper. (Para 39, 40, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 38, S. 34 - Injunction - Grant of relief of - Legality - Plaintiff had sued for injunction simpliciter claiming that her brother/defendant was inducted as tenant in property bequeathed to her by will by their father - Defendant claimed it to be joint family property set apart to his share - Plaintiff stated that property covered by Will was in possession of defendant - While asserting a Will and title on its strength, plaintiff ought to have sought declaration of title especially when defendant claimed to be in occupation as co-owner and had made valuable improvements - Defendant too failed to seek a declaration on the basis of an arrangement entered into with the father and other brother or seek a partition on the strength of a counter claim - 'Will' was proved but the right of the testator to bequeath the property was doubtful - Courts below had erred in granting injunction against interference in peaceful enjoyment of property especially when possession was admittedly with defendant - Grant of injunction against alienation was proper since defendant too had not sought declaration of title - In view of stalemate created with ownership not having been declared in favour of either of the parties and considering the relationship, liberty was reserved to either of the parties to seek declaration of title and consequential possession or recovery of possession, if they desire. (Para 8, 10, 11, 12)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (15 of 2003), S. 26 - Quashing of complaint and cognizance order - Prayer for - Alternate remedy - Offence of money laundering - Accused had already invoked their statutory remedy of appeal before Appellate Tribunal under S.26 of PMLA, which was yet to be decided - Core issue was whether the specific sum representing unpaid consideration for iron ore supplied by group company of appellant could be treated as "proceeds of crime" and whether its withdrawal post Provisional Attachment Order constituted an offence u/S. 3 PMLA - Appropriate course would be to permit the statutory process to reach its logical conclusion - Interference at this stage would be prejudging issues which were within the domain of Appellate Tribunal - No interference was warranted. (Para 33, 36, 38, 39, 40)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.378 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Reversal of acquittal - Correctness of - Allegation that due to previous enmity, accused had assaulted deceased which resulted in his death and his wife suffered life-threatening injuries - Wife of deceased had clearly stated manner of commission of offence and had assigned specific roles to accused persons - Injuries sustained by wife of deceased were not challenged by defense - High Court had rightly found fault with trial court's disbelieving and discarding of testimony of wife of deceased - Trial court's finding was purely conjectural and unsustainable in law - Prosecution had proved that death of deceased was homicidal - The time and place of crime were also established, FIR was promptly lodged and medical evidence supported prosecution version - Recovery memos were proved - High Court had taken a balanced view and after minutely scrutinizing evidence, rightly reversed acquittal of 7 out of 16 accused persons and upheld acquittal of rest of the accused persons on the ground of insufficient evidence (Para 19-29)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 19(6), Art. 14 - Tender - Legality of tender condition - Tender was for supply of Sports Kits to students of schools run by State Government - Eligibility criteria mentioned in tender notices ought to have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e., supply of good quality Sports Kits to students of the school, at the best price - Tender condition provided that bidders must have supplied Sports Kits worth specified amount to the State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh - Tender condition had effect of excluding competent and experienced suppliers, who may have executed contracts of far greater magnitude in other States or for Central Government departments, from participating in tender and had impact of promoting cartelisation - State by linking eligibility criteria with past local supplies had created artificial barrier, against suppliers who had no past dealing with State of Chhattisgarh curtailing fundamental rights of bidders - To confine eligibility to participate in tender, within one State was not only irrational but was also disproportionate to goal of ensuring effective delivery of Sports Kits - Such restriction, cannot be justified as reasonable within meaning of Art. 19(6) - Held, the tender condition was arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory - Tender notices were quashed. (Para 17, 18, 19, 20, 22)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.11 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Omission to name accused in FIR - Though complainant had named six persons with whom he admittedly had long-standing enmity, names of accused appellants were not mentioned in FIR in spite of being familiar with them - Such omissions in FIR are relevant u/S 11 of Evidence Act,in judging veracity of the prosecution case - Subsequent attempt to implicate appellants at a later stage indicated possibility of false implication- High Court's dismissal of such omission which struck at the roots of prosecution case, as inconsequential, was flawed. (Para 29,30)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.60 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Conspiracy - Witness had deposed that in a public gathering in connection with a marriage ceremony, he overheard accused conspiring to commit murder - Witness admitted that he treated the remarks as "loose talk" and failed to report them, even when victim went missing and was later found dead - Said crucial detail was omitted in the FIR also , which he had scribed - Delayed disclosure, improbability of discussion about conspiracy in a public setting, and contradictions in timeline raised serious doubts about testimony of witness - High Court had erred in accepting said testimony about conspiracy as credible. (Para 31,32,33)

(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.106 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Prosecution relied on testimony of two witnesses to establish "last-seen" theory linking accused to the crime - However, both witnesses identified accused for the first time in court without any prior Test Identification Parade, making their identification unreliable - Witness admitted he didn't know accused earlier and saw them from a distance while working when admittedly his line of sight was obstructed - Wife and son of said witness, who were present, were not examined - Time gap between accused and deceased having been seen together and recovery of body was too wide to rule out third-party involvement - Witnesses did not corroborate each other - High Court had erred in accepting the testimonies regarding last seen theory as reliable. (Para 34-48)

(D) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.45 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Medical evidence - Though medical evidence confirmed homicide, it did not link the injuries to any particular weapon or to accused - DNA reports were inconclusive - Recovery of rope was procedurally flawed, with no independent witnesses examined - Where scientific evidence is neutral or exculpatory, courts must give it due weight - High Court had erred in ignoring neutral scientific evidence and convicting accused on the basis of doubtful ocular testimony. (Para 49-53)

(E) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302, S.201, S.120B - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased a 10-year-old boy was allegedly murdered by accused persons - Case of prosecution lacked a clear and proven motive, relying only on an unsubstantiated claim of revenge for an alleged insult to accused's sister - No evidence showed animosity toward the 10-year-old victim - Medical and forensic evidence did not link accused to crime, and eyewitness accounts were unreliable - Case was based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances - Applying principle that suspicion cannot replace proof, accused were entitled to benefit of doubt - Convictions under Ss.302, 201, and 120-B IPC were set aside. (Para 54-57)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 21 - Writ petition - Jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of - Unilateral hike of license fee in respect of land was under challenge in the writ petition - Having found that hike was justified, High Court ought to have disposed of petition by dismissing it - Direction issued by High Court for fixing license fee as per judgment rendered in another case, without notice to the appellant, was unjustified - Further direction to hold vigilance enquiry was not warranted in facts of case - Directions for a fishing and roving enquiry can seriously impinge upon reputation and character of the parties - Said directions had rendered appellants worse off in their own writ petition - Said directions were expunged and set aside being beyond the scope of writ petition and violative of principles of natural justice. (Para 20, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166(5) (As inserted in 2022) - Motor Accident - Injury claim petition - Continuation by legal representatives - Permissibility - Right to claim compensation for injuries caused in motor vehicle accident survives on legal representatives of injured even if injured dies in course of proceedings for reasons not relatable to or having any nexus with injuries sustained - Injured died in 2024, after insertion of S.166 (5) in MV Act, 1988 - Legal representatives were entitled to continue proceedings. (Para 7)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Motor accident - Compensation - Quantum - Considering fact that injured was engaged as skilled worker for which oral evidence was adduced, his monthly income was considered as Rs. 9,000/- p.m. - Injured had suffered 100% disability which was certified by Medical Board of Govt. Hospital - Injured was aged about 45 years - Multiplier of 11 was applied instead of 14 - Victim would also be entitled to 25% for future prospects especially since his functional disability was 100% which totally disabled him from carrying on any work or generate any income - Award was modified accordingly. (Para 10, 11)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 - Accident claim - Quantum of compensation - Determination of income - Legality - In claim petition for compensation in respect of injuries suffered in accident, Tribunal had determined compensation by assessing income of injured as Rs 9,000/- p m - High Court applied the criteria under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and assessed income of claimant as Rs.8,000/- and reduced amount of compensation - High Court had erred in law in applying the parameters under Act of 1923 when the compensation was fixed by Tribunal in a claim petition under S.166 of the M.V. Act by applying principles under the said Act - Compensation awarded by Tribunal was restored. (Para 5, 6)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 - Accident claim - Determination of compensation - Omission to add future prospects - Since claimant had not challenged decision of tribunal before High Court and only insurance company had approached High Court, claimant could not be permitted to raise the ground before Supreme Court that addition on account of future prospects ought to have been made. (Para 6.1)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302, S.304 Part 1 - Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Intention to cause death - Allegation that accused persons had an altercation with complainant's father and uncles, over measurement of agricultural fields and later started hitting them with pike, sticks, and spear, resulting in their death - Evidence established that accused had used only blunt side of sharp-edged weapons - Medical evidence showed only lacerated and contused wounds but not incised wounds - Son of deceased uncle of complainant, had turned hostile - Though accused could be said to have knowledge that injuries inflicted would cause death, intention to cause death was not established - Conviction under S.302 was altered to S.304 Part 1 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment was modified to period already undergone i.e. more than 12 years of imprisonment. (Para 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Claim petition - Dismissal of - Legality - As per eyewitness proffered by claimants, she was running wayside fruit shop near scene of occurrence; which had not been established by any document - Statement of witness that she along with daughter of victim had noted number of vehicle was contrary to her statement that when she returned with daughter of victim, the offending vehicle and victim had disappeared - Further, in criminal case, driver of offending vehicle was acquitted - Driver was not identified by alleged eyewitness - Dismissal of claim petition was proper. (Para 7, 8)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Motor accident - Quantum of compensation - A 20-year-old pillion rider was rendered paraplegic in a car accident - Tribunal had awarded Rs.18,03,512/- including medical bills, loss of income, and Rs. 1 lakh for pain and suffering - On appeal, High Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 32,46,388/- by increasing income assessment, granting Rs. 14 lakhs under conventional heads, and Rs. 11,22,356/- towards medical expenses - Income of victim, a graduate preparing for CA exam, could not be assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker - Monthly income of victim was assessed at Rs. 5,000 with 40% added for future prospects, computing loss of income at Rs.15,12,000/- Adding Rs.14 lakhs under conventional heads and Rs.11,22,356/- medical expenses, total compensation was fixed at Rs.40,34,356/- with interest @ 9% p a - Additionally, sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was awarded towards future medical expenses, payable by insurance company within four months without interest, failing which it would carry interest @ 9% p. a. (Para 5,6,7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 32, Art. 142 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 242 - Clubbing of FIRs - Permissibility - FIRs were registered in different States on complaints of investors of depositors who alleged to have been duped by firm by diverting funds leading to loss of their life's savings - Prayers made in writ petition for clubbing of FIRs from different States and also regarding future FIRs were illegal - Prayer regarding future FIRs was one which cannot be granted by any court of law - After investigation if a charge sheet was filed, trial would have to be proceeded with, producing witnesses, being investors of depositors, from various locations - In Telangana there were 4 crimes registered, three by Economic Offences Wing and one in Cyberabad, hence, FIR registered in Cyberabad would stand transferred to Economic Offences Wing - In State of Maharashtra, there were two FIRs registered, one in Ambazari, Nagpur city and other in Wagle Estate, Thane City - FIR registered in Wagle Estate, Thane City would be transferred to Ambazari, Nagpur City - Prayer for clubbing of single FIRs filed in State of Karnataka, West Bengal, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan was rejected. (Para 4, 5, 8, 12)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 378 - Acquittal of accused - Circumstantial evidence - Failure to prove chain of circumstances - Offences of murder and causing disappearance of evidence - In a murder case, prosecution relied on a chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt of accused - Call detail records used to connect two accused with the crime were found inadmissible due to non-production of requisite statutory certificate and being presented through unproved handwritten note - Recovery of 'chunni' used to strangulate victim and other recoveries were found to be concocted, planted or insignificant, leading to conclusion that no admissible or reliable evidence connected accused to murder - Prosecution theory of conspiracy and motive to kill victim was based on testimony of witness, who claimed accused threatened victim over a land dispute, but such testimony was rightly discarded on account of gross exaggerations and improvements - Mere threat to inflict harm, in isolation, cannot be sufficient to prove conspiracy to commit murder - Acquittal of accused was based on a proper appreciation and evaluation of evidence - Judgment of acquittal passed by High Court was upheld (Para 31 to 38)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of FIR - Prima facie case - Appellants accused persons were father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant - Allegations in FIR lodged against husband and in-laws, were regarding demand for further gifts/dowry and unnatural sex - As regards demand of gifts and dowry, statements of a general and vague nature were made in FIR as against appellants - For constituting offence punishable u/S. 498A IPC, cruelty caused should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself - No such allegation as against appellants was made in FIR - Allegations concerning unnatural sex were directed solely against husband - Prima facie case was not made out against accused - Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law - FIR was quashed as against appellants. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Complainant MLA had alleged that accused offered him money and ticket to go abroad so as to abstain from voting or to vote in a particular manner in upcoming MLC elections - It was further alleged that another person later offered more money for the same purpose - FIR was not registered on same day -Police arranged audio and video recordings of a subsequent meeting and registered a case under S.12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Accused was not shown to have been present and only reference to him was a vague claim of a phone call without details - No evidence was produced linking accused to offence - High Court had rightly quashed proceedings. (Para 5,6,7,8)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 - Accident claim - Grant of compensation - Challenge against - After award was passed by Tribunal, review application was filed by Insurer on ground that owner of offending vehicle had fraudulently changed validity dates of policy but Tribunal did not entertain review application on the ground that it had no power under the Act to review - Though allegation of fraud of changing policy dates was levelled it was not be proved by insurer - Dismissal of review application was not challenged before High Court by Insurer - Considering that it was brought on record that verification of policy showed that it did not cover the date when accident occurred, it would subserve the ends of justice if the Insurance Company is allowed to recover 50% of the compensation from the owner and the driver in accordance with law (Para 5, 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 309 - Appointment - Applicable Rules - Post of Lecturer - Advertisement was clear that Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules of 2001 would be the governing Rules - Though appellant was overage, government condoned same as per Rules of 2001 applicable to an aided post in an aided institution and appointment was approved - In the absence of stipulation in advertisement or spelling out of applicable Rules, applying Rule 19(iv) of Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules of 2003 to set aside appointment of appellant was erroneous. (Para 6, 7)

(A) Income-Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules (1962), R.16 - Income-Tax Act (43 of 1961), S.295 - Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act (51 of 1993), S.19 - Auction sale - Legality - Bank filed application under S.19 of 1993 Act for recovery of dues against the club - Fact that the subject plot mortgaged by club with the bank had been allotted on lease to the Club by the DDA was within the knowledge of the Bank - DDA filed objection before Recovery Officer on ground that no permission as required under lease deed was granted by it to mortgage subject plot to Bank - Recovery Officer without directing DDA to quantify its claim on account of unearned increase in relation to subject plot and without ascertaining same, directed, that sale proclamation be issued - DDA has an encumbrance i.e. claim for amount of unearned increase in respect of subject plot was not disclosed in e-auction - Bank also failed to disclose terms and conditions of lease executed between DDA and Club, to Recovery Officer - E-auction notice was issued in violation of R.53 of Second Schedule to 1961 Act as well as R.16 of Rules, 1962 - Held, e-auction, sale notice and proclamation of sale, confirmation of sale and sale certificate had no legal sanctity (Para 26, 27)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S.11 - Doctrine of Res Judicata - Applicability - Matter pertaining to legality of auction sale - Earlier writ petition filed by DDA was withdrawn in view of undertaking furnished by bank that auction shall take place in accordance with terms and conditions of lease - Earlier writ petition was not decided on merits - In view of undertaking furnished by bank, as recorded by that High Court in its order, DDA had right to insist that auction was held in accordance with terms and conditions of lease - Auction was held in violation of terms of lease - DDA had fresh cause of action to approach Court - Principles analogous to S.11 of CPC 1908 did not apply to case. (Para 29)

(C) Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act (51 of 1993), S.19 - Illegal auction sale - Rights of auction purchaser - Relief of restitution - Auction purchaser company had participated in auction in good faith, and presuming legitimacy of transaction, had deposited its hard-earned money - Auction purchaser neither breached covenant nor failed in diligence and did not seek to profit from illegality - On auction sale being declared illegal, auction purchaser was held entitled to the relief of restitution - Bank was liable for consequences of having advanced money on illegal mortgage and for auctioning what it lawfully did not possess - Bank was directed to refund to Auction purchaser entire amount lying in deposit with interest @ of 9% per annum (Para 32)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 439 - Bail - Grant of - Legality - Bail was granted without considering observations of High Court in earlier round of litigation regarding conduct of accused persons and without examining material available in charge-sheet - Manner in which bail was granted showed certain procedural irregularities at the grass-root level of the judiciary, which could not be ignored - Grant of bail was perverse.

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 439 - Bail - Prayer for placing matter before particular bench - Prayer for reference of matter before same Judge who had earlier rejected anticipatory bail on ground that Single Judge's roster had changed and he was sitting in a Division Bench on that date - Though Court had the discretion to reject application, reason assigned for same was improper.

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Negotiable Instruments - Penalties in case of dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds - Scope and intent of Chapter XVII of NI Act - Explained (Para .)

(B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138, S.118, S.139 - Dishonour of cheque - Execution of cheque - Admission regarding - Effect - Once execution of a cheque is admitted, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act would arise. (Para .)

(C) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138, S.118, S.139 - Dishonour of cheque - Debt created by cash transactions above Rs. 20,000 - Presumption u/S 139 NI Act - Applicability - Conclusion of law drawn by Kerala High Court in P.C. Hari [2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5535 :AIROnline 2025 KER 424] that a debt created by a cash transaction above Rs. 20,000 in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not a 'legally enforceable debt' unless there is a valid explanation for the same , implying that presumption under Section 139 of the Act will not be attracted in case of debts created by cash transactions above Rs. 20,000, was found to be erroneous and was set aside - Further, approach of some courts of not giving effect to the presumptions incorporated in Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act and treating the proceedings under NI Act as another civil recovery proceedings , was disapproved

(D) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope - Concurrent findings of fact - In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot , in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent findings of fact - Revisional Court cannot re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record - It is settled law that in the absence of a jurisdictional error, the Revisional Court will not interfere, even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction (Para 27,28)

(E) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Failure to reply to statutory notice - Effect - Failure of the accused to reply to a statutory notice under Section 138 NI Act leads to an inference that there is merit in complainant's case - After receipt of legal notice alleging that accused's cheque had bounced, no complaint or legal proceeding were initiated by him alleging that the cheque was not to be encashed - Defence of financial incapacity of complainant was an afterthought (Para .29-31)

(F) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in disposal of cases - Court took judicial notice of the fact that despite repeated directions issued by Court, pendency of cheque bouncing cases continues to be staggeringly high - Not only that a voluntary compromise can bring the proceedings u/S 138 NI Act to an end, but accused are entitled to benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Directions were issued considering massive backlog of cheque bouncing cases and fact that service of summons on the accused continues to be one of the main reasons for the delay in disposal of the complaints as well as the fact that punishment under the NI Act is not a means of seeking retribution but is means to ensure payment of money and to promote credibility of cheques as a trustworthy substitute for cash payment (Para .)

(G) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138, S.147 - Offences under NI Act - Compounding of - Directions for - Guidelines for compounding offences under the NI Act nearly fifteen years back in Damodar Prabhu's case [(2010) 5 SCC 663 ]were modified in view of pendency of cases and fall in rates of interest (Para .)

(H) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Proof - Cheque issued by accused to the complainant towards repayment of loan of Rs.6 lakhs was dishonoured - Cheque was admittedly signed by accused- Presumptions u/Ss 118 and 139 of the NI Act would arise - Appellant had provided evidence of having advanced loan, partly from personal funds and partly from borrowings from his father - Accused failed to rebut legal presumption, did not reply to statutory notice, and produced no evidence to prove complainant's lack of financial capacity - Plea of accused that a signed blank cheque was given for securing a bank loan to complainant, was found to be implausible - Violation of S. 269SS of the Income Tax Act in creating debt by cash transaction above ?20,000 would not render the debt unenforceable - High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings in absence of perversity - Judgment of conviction passed by trial court and affirmed by sessions court , was restored (Para 15,17,18,22,23,24,25,26,28,29-32,40)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 37, R. 1, O. 37, R. 3(4), O. 37, R. 3(5) - Summary suit - Summons for judgment - Leave to defend - Whether necessary - Summons for judgment was served on defendant - Requirement in terms of R. 3(5) of O. 37 CPC was to file an application seeking leave to file defence - Instead of filing an application seeking leave to defend, defendant had filed an application for dismissal of suit for non-compliance with S. 12A of Commercial Courts Act - Said application was allowed and parties were referred to mediation - High Court had erred in bypassing requirement of R. 3(4), (5) of O. 37 of CPC - Allowing a reply or defence to come on record in a summary suit without leave of Court would efface the distinction sought to be maintained between a suit normally instituted and summary suit under O. 37 of CPC. (Para 6, 9)

(A) Provincial Insolvency Act (5 of 1920), S. 35, S. 37 - Annulment of insolvency - Transfer made during insolvency - When saved - For operation of S.37 of Provincial Insolvency Act , it is fundamental that there must in fact be a finality of transactions - There must be conclusion of sales, dispositions of property and/or the payments made in that regard - S.37 proceedings cannot partake the character of a civil court deciding a suit for specific performance of an agreement - High Court had erred in reversing finding of district court that transfer deed executed during insolvency was based on fabricated documents, without reappreciating evidence, and holding that transfer remained valid despite annulment of insolvency.

(A) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S. 14(1)(d) - Deficiency in service - Delay in offering possession - Award of interest to buyer - Rate of - Plot was booked in 2006 and possession was to be handed over within 24 months of sanction of service plans of entire colony - Till 2018, possession was not offered - Earlier in 2011, alternate plot was allotted citing change in layout plan - On complaint being filed before NCDRC, refund of entire principle amount along with interest at 9% p.a. was awarded to the buyer - It is settled that amount of interest should be reasonable and it is to be granted considering facts and circumstances of case - Overall conduct of respondent was taken into consideration - Equity and fairness demands that respondent be put to same rigours and face consequences similar to those imposed on buyer for default committed by him - Rate of interest was enhanced to 18% p. a. (Para 12, 18, 19, 20, 21)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Prima facie case - FIR was lodged u/Ss. 406, 420, s 406, 420 and 120B IPC alleging that despite complainant having paid consideration for agreement for sale, properties were not transferred by accused - There was no allegation indicating either expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of accused right from the time of making the promise or misrepresentation - Complainant had also failed to place any material on record to show entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion for own use, thereby committing a breach of trust - Further, allegation of having committed offences under Ss. 420 and 406 of IPC cannot be made at the same time - FIR was filed after a delay of eight years - Instead of filing civil suit for alleged violation of his contractual rights, complainant chose to set the criminal law in motion - No offence as alleged was made out - Allegations against accused had been made with a mala fide intent - FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed. (Para 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of FIR - Prima facie case - Offences of causing hurt , cruelty and dowry demand against husband and in-laws - Complainant neither provided specific details of demand of dowry nor mentioned instances of harassment - Complainant did not mention time, date, place, or manner in which alleged harassment occurred or details of nature of demand or its particulars - Allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt against accused were vague and general in nature - None of the offences alleged against accused were made out - Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against an accused - FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed. (Para 18, 21, 23)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 304(a) - Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act (4 of 2003), S. 8(3), S. 15 - Value added tax - Exemption from payment of - Constitutional validity of - Grant of exemption from payment of Value Added Tax on sale of asbestos cement sheets and bricks, manufactured in the State of Rajasthan only , having contents of fly ash 25% or more by weight subject to specific conditions, was discriminatory and violative of Art. 304(a) of the Constitution of India.

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Prima facie case - Allegation that complainant had taken loan from appellant and an agreement to sell was executed in respect of a plot owned by complainant and that cheques procured from complainant were dishonoured - FIR was lodged after appellant had initiated proceedings against complainant u/S. 138 NI Act - Complainant was convicted in said proceedings - Dispute concerning repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in execution of documents was purely civil in character - Essential ingredients of cheating or forgery were prima facie not made out -Institution of multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforced inference of mala fides - Machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance - FIR and charge sheet were quashed. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.147 - Motor Accident - Liability of insurer - Pay and recover - Applicability - On date of accident, driver of offending vehicle had no valid licence and licence was not renewed - Conditions in law were satisfied to absolve insurance company from payment of compensation - However, as per settled law, principle of 'pay and recover' ought to have been applied -Insurer was directed to first satisfy award and later recover it from insured-owner of vehicle. (Para 6, 7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 136 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 114, O. 47, R. 7(1) - Second Special leave petition - Maintainability - Second special leave petition would not be maintainable at instance of a party, who elects not to proceed with challenge laid by him in an earlier special leave petition and withdraws such petition without obtaining leave to file a fresh special leave petition - If such party applies for a review before Court from whose order special leave petition was initially carried and review fails, then he can neither challenge order rejecting review nor order of which review was sought.

(A) Finance Act (32 of 1994), S.65(23), S.65(105)(zzm), S.66 - Central Excise Act (1 of 1944), S.35L - Service tax - Taxable services - Services rendered by AAI in relation to export cargo - "Taxable services" are defined under Sub-section (105) of Section 65 of the Act to mean any services provided or to be provided to various persons, including those falling under sub-clause (zzm) - Conjoint reading of sub-clause (zzm) with Sub-section (105) shows that taxable services are those services which are provided to any person by the Airports Authority in any airport or a civil enclave - All kinds of services rendered by the Airports Authority in any airport are taxable services and are chargeable to service tax under S.66 of the Act - Exclusion of "handling of export cargo" from the "cargo handling service" by itself, would not be sufficient to exclude it from definition of taxable service - Held, services rendered by Airports Authority of India in relation to export cargo are taxable service under sub-clause (zzm) of Sub-section (105) of S.65 of the Act with effect from 10.09.2004. (Para 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Retiral dues - Recovery from and belated payment of - Legality - Order by which re-fixation of salary of respondent was done after his superannuation and his salary was relegated to lower scale, was withdrawn - However, recovery was made from gratuity and pension paid to respondent belatedly , on account of penal house rent and excess payment of salary - There was no occasion for State to have conducted re-fixation of pay after retirement of the respondent and then proceed to recover excess amount from the retiral dues - Failure to vacate official residence cannot be a reason to withhold retiral benefits rightfully due to the employee since the two are entirely separate aspects - Order of High Court by which recovery was held to be illegal and refund along with interest was ordered to be made, was upheld. (Para 11)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Allegation that after victim was persistently asked for repayment of loan amount by accused, he got agitated and instigated his wife, brother and brother-in-law, invited victim home, made him immobile by throwing chili powder on his face and hacked him to death with two choppers - Prosecution case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence that was unreliable and did not form a complete chain - Key witnesses, including wife, mother and brother of deceased, as well as two alleged eyewitnesses were completely discredited - Alleged eye-witnesses turned hostile and denied being tenants of accused, as alleged by prosecution - Reliance on testimony of hostile witnesses was misplaced - Prosecution narrative of crime was full of inconsistencies, such as lack of evidence that deceased was ever called to house of accused and unexplained four-hour gap between the time when victim allegedly reached house of accused and time of death - Prosecution failed to prove motive and origin of crime - Alleged presence of dead body at house of accused was highly doubtful - Circumstantial evidence did not meet standard of forming unbreakable chain leading only to guilt of accused - Accused were acquitted. (Para 32 to 36)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 45 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 299 - Homicidal death - Medical evidence - Doctor who conducted post-mortem specifically mentioned in his report presence of approximately 13 wounds, including lacerated and chop wounds, that were cause of death - Injuries, which were all ante-mortem, included severe trauma to head, with fractures and exposed brain tissue, as well as wounds on right side and middle of forehead and left side of face - Such injuries were consistent with a brutal frontal attack and could have been caused by a chopper recovered from scene of crime from accused - Death was proved to be homicidal. (Para 7, 8)

(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 8 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Motive - Prosecution relied on testimony of wife of accused, mother and brother of deceased and a police constable to establish a motive for murder as non-repayment of loan - Chief examination of wife of accused did not support loan theory - In cross examination, wife of accused admitted that in domestic enquiry against her husband she had stated that her husband and deceased were on cordial terms and had no financial transactions - Neighbour of accused and police constable, testified that accused and deceased had friendly relations and he had no knowledge of any loan, forcing prosecution to treat him as hostile - Prosecution case was that deceased was summoned over telephone, to the house of accused , on the pretext of repaying the loan but even wife of deceased had no case that the deceased left the house on such a mission, after a telephone call - While absence of motive is not always fatal to a conviction, it is a factor that weighs in favour of accused - Motive was not established. (Para 10 to 14)

(D) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 106 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Presence of dead body in accused's house - Prosecution relied on circumstance of presence of dead body at house of accused -Key witnesses, including wife of victim and other neighbours made contradictory testimonies about finding dead body in house of accused - Witnesses who had previously stated to police that they saw body at house of accused, resiled from their statements and were declared hostile - Inquest report, allegedly drawn at crime scene, was also discredited by inquest witnesses who testified that it was prepared at hospital - There was no cogent, credible evidence that the body was at the house of accused - Even otherwise, presence of dead body in house of accused, by itself, cannot be conclusive proof to find accused guilty, without other corroborating evidence. (Para 16 to 19, 22)

(E) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 25, S. 24 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Extra judicial confession - Reliability - All extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by accused were made at police station - Confession made to police officer and overheard by police sentry in the police station must be completely disregarded since law prohibits confessions made to police officers being proved against accused - Similarly, confessions made to wife of victim and a police constable who was present at police station were also inadmissible - Other witnesses to whom confessions were allegedly made inside police station had turned hostile - Extra-judicial confession of accused could not be relied on. (Para 23, 24, 25C)

(F) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 27 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Recovery evidence - Reliability - Prosecution relied on recovery of chopper based on confession statement made by accused - IO testified that both accused made voluntary statements about concealing chopper, but officer did not specify whether statements were made simultaneously or separately, or who made first disclosure - If confessions were made simultaneously, recovery could not be used against both - Witnesses to recovery also turned hostile and stated that they had signed recovery document at police station - Prosecution failed to provide any forensic evidence linking recovered weapon to crime - Recovery evidence could not be relied on, to establish culpability of accused. (Para 28, 29, 31)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.439(2) - Revocation of bail - Legality - Offences of murder, unlawful assembly and hurt - Allegations that accused were activists of particular political organization who, allegedly, due to political enmity, brutally attacked victim who succumbed to the injuries - Accused had not violated any of the conditions of bail except in one case - Accused had suffered incarceration for nearly a year and thereafter had been on bail for almost 2 years before the orders granting bail were revoked - By imposing stringent conditions, issue of likelihood of witnesses being influenced or evidence being tampered with, could have been addressed - Antecedents by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail - Trial was not likely to conclude in near future - Since grant of bail, accused had not been involved in any similar or other offence - Circumstances in relation to FIR lodged against one accused after grant of bail, were not such as to warrant cancellation of bail - Order of revocation of bail was set aside (Para 21, 25)

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.439(2) - Revocation of bail - Powers of High Court - Appropriate order - Offences under Ss.143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302 of IPC - Allegations that accused were activists of particular political organization who, allegedly, due to political enmity, brutally attacked victim who succumbed to the injuries - High Court revoked orders granting bail after noting that Sessions Court kept only two considerations in mind, period of custody and 'no opposition from the prosecution', without discussion of other factors in detail - However, Sessions Court having primarily proceeded on premise of there being no objection from side of prosecution for grant of bail, it would have been just and proper for High Court to direct Sessions Court to consider all relevant factors and decide afresh application of accused persons for bail - Having regard to the lapse of time and submissions advanced, Supreme Court decided the appeals on merits instead of remitting to the sessions court (Para 18)

(A) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S. 12 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Contempt petition - Rejection of - Challenge against - Appellant had not been considered for promotion due to punishment imposed on her - Later, entire departmental proceedings were set aside by High Court - Consequential benefits including retrospective promotion was directed by High Court - In strict compliance with directions issued by High Court, State ought to have promoted appellant on the date on which her immediate junior was promoted, giving her relaxation in the minimum experience for consideration for promotion as was done in the case of her junior - State had failed to grant such relaxation to appellant - Appellant was also entitled to consequential benefits - Rejection of contempt petition was erroneous. (Para 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of FIR and charge sheet - Prima facie case - Accused allegedly forced intimate relations on complainant and on refusal, he assured her of marriage but failed to perform marriage with her - Earlier, accused had initiated legal and administrative processes against complainant as a result of which show-cause notice was issued by employer regarding complainant's continued acrimonious behaviour against accused - On failure to give clarification complainant would have been relieved of her employment - Thereafter subject FIR was lodged - FIR was lodged four months after alleged incident - There was a strong possibility that FIR was lodged as an afterthought and was a vehicle for vengeance - FIR and charge sheet was quashed. (Para 13, 15)

(A) Central Excise Act (1 of 1944), S. 35L(b), S. 2(f) - Levy of excise duty - Manufacture - Tests of transformation and marketability - Process of placing Genset within a steel container and fitting the steel container with components such as radiator, ventilation fan, air filter unit, oil tank, pipes, pumps, valve and silencer for providing "Containerized Genset" or "Power Pack", satisfied tests of transformation and marketability - The process would amount to 'manufacture' - Levy of excise duty by assessing the Gensets under sub-heading 8502.2090 of Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, was proper.

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138 Proviso (b), S. 141, S. 142 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice for - Difference in amount mentioned in notice and cheque - Effect - Cheque was issued for Rs.1,00,00,000/- but in notices sent to accused, complainant had asked for payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/- It is mandatory that notice to be issued under Proviso (b) to S. 138 of the Act, must mention the same amount for which the cheque was issued - Defence of inadvertent or typographical error is not permissible - Notice was invalid - Order quashing complaint was proper.

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - Appellate Jurisdiction of High Court - Scope - High Court reversed judgment of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and acquitted accused persons without giving any reasons and considering evidence on record - While hearing appeal under S.374(2), it is duty of appellate court to independently evaluate evidence presented and determine whether such evidence is credible - High Court ought to have considered evidence on record in light of arguments advanced by parties and thereafter ascertained whether Sessions Court was justified in passing judgment of conviction and imposing sentence - As order of High Court was cryptic and de hors any reasoning, matter was remanded to High Court to rehear appeals. (Para 8, 11, 12, 20)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of FIR - Rejection of application for - Offence of matrimonial cruelty - Despite having been separated from husband for almost three years to the date, wife considered filing complaint one month after grant of divorce - Same appeared to be a counterblast to husband having secured two orders in his favour, for return of child and for divorce - Though Court in Austria had ordered the child to be brought back to Australia, where husband was located, order was not complied with - Fact that service in divorce case was effected in India, made genuineness of wife's conduct questionable, as she had pleaded that she wanted to keep the child in Austria, since she had been integrated in the society there - Though in the complaint it was alleged that there was possibility that husband may abduct her child, earlier, charge of unilaterally removing child from joint custody of both the parents was proved against wife - Surprisingly, alleged cruelty meted out by husband extended to a period beyond the time parties were married - Allowing FIR to proceed further, would be an abuse of process of law - FIR was quashed. (Para 9, 10, 11, 13)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 451 - Release of case property - Legality of order for - Money was recovered as part of investigation in which exchange of money was subject matter of controversy - Dispute pertained to money paid to complainant and other like firms, in the course of business - Though complainant had produced certain documents to show that proprietary firm through the accused, owed him/his concern a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, possibility of said sum of money being part of some other transaction could not be ruled out - Mere fact that amount owed to him matched amount recovered, would not establish that he was only claimant - Appropriate ownership of sum of money could only be determined after consideration of all evidence - Order for releasing case property (muddamal) was unjustified and premature. (Para 10, 11)

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S. 8(c), S. 18 - Illegal possession of contraband - Acquittal of co-accused - Principle of parity - Applicability - Complaint against accused and co-accused was same - A Joint trial was conducted in respect of both accused, common evidence was led and on basis of appreciation of said evidence, High Court had acquitted co-accused - Interest of justice would be served if accused was also acquitted - Judgment of High Court to the extent of conviction of accused, was set aside. (Para 9, 10)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.364, S.302, S.201 - Kidnapping and murder - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased auto driver was allegedly dragged from his auto, kidnapped by accused and was later found dead with multiple injuries - Conviction of accused was based on statements of alleged eyewitnesses - Said witnesses turned hostile, testified only to having seen some "Galata" but could neither identify accused nor confirm kidnapping - No other evidence establishing last seen of deceased with accused - Motive i.e. previous quarrel and FIRs between families was not sufficient to prove guilt in absence of credible evidence - Prosecution failed to establish chain of circumstances - Accused was entitled to acquittal. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

(A) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961), S. 2(g)(6)(As amended) - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (50 of 1948), S. 18 - Reservation of land - Vesting of land in State - Lands which have not been earmarked for any specific purpose do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State.

(B) DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS, - Doctrine of Stare decisis - Applicability - High Court was right in applying the doctrine of stare decisis and following the law which was consistently applied earlier in more than 100 judgments.

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Appointment - Post of In-charge Headmaster - Petitioner had challenged appointment of respondent as In-charge Headmaster of Govt. Aided U.P.School - Plead of petitioner that he and respondent, though appointed on different dates, had joined service on same day and he being senior most Assistant Teacher and Founder Teacher of school, therefore, should have been considered to take over post of In-charge Headmaster - Entire dispute, primarily, had arisen due to non-constitution of regular Managing Committee since 23-12-2023, which ordinarily resolved these matters in school itself - It was natural that interest of students studying in said school would suffer - Direction issued state respondents to take immediate steps to commence process for reconstitution of regular Managing Committee. (Para 7, 8)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.47, R.1, S.114 - Review Petition - Maintainability - Tender process - Challenge against technical disqualification - Petitioner filed a review petition pursuant to liberty granted by Supreme Court in S.L.P., on the ground that though its presence was recorded in impugned order of Division Bench, it was not actually represented or heard - No substance in the grievance as Division Bench had directed Tender Committee to reconsider technical eligibility of both; petitioner and other disqualified bidder, after granting them a short hearing and by a reasoned order was passed - Petitioner, therefore, suffered no prejudice - Review petition was dismissed. (Para 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138, S. 139, S. 118 - Dishonour of cheque - Appreciation evidence - Defence of cheque book lost and misuse of cheques - Accused alleged that he had lost the cheque book resulting in misuse of fact by complainant - No proof of contemporaneous police complaint or bank intimation was produced - Witness testimony between accused and defence witness regarding date and manner of loss was contradictory - Defence of lost cheque was improbable and unsubstantiated - Presumptions u/ Ss. 118 and 139 were unrebutted - Held, once issuance, dishonour and notice are proved, burden shifts to the accused to show absence of liability - Cheques signed by accused were drawn on his account, and dishonoured with endorsement "payment stopped by drawer" - Hence, offence u/ S. 138 was made out - Conviction was held to be proper. (Para 31)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.420, S.406 - Constitution of India, Art.226 - Quashing of FIR and charge sheet - Mutual exclusivity of offences under Ss. 406 and 420 - Complaint and police report found three distinct transactions - First two transactions concerning two properties substantiated alleged misappropriation after receiving refundable deposits - Criminal breach of trust under S.406 was constituted - Third transaction relating to another property shown inducement to pay Rs1.32 crore on false promise of joint development - This constituted cheating under S.420 - Since each transaction constituted distinct offence, charges were not mutually destructive - Complaint and charge sheet disclosed prima facie ingredients for both offences in relation to three separate transactions - Simultaneous filing of charges under Ss. 406 and 420 was legally permissible - FIR and charge sheet, not liable to be quashed. (Para 19, 20, 21, 22)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.34, S.12(5), S. 26 - Arbitral award - Setting aside of - Application of the 2015 Amendment Act - Dispute revolved around composition of arbitral tribunal - Parties had entered into contract for construction of railway bridge across tunnel in State Rail Link Project - Plea of petitioner that since Arbitral Tribunal was comprised of employees of respondent / Railway Authority, they were de jure ineligible to act as arbitrators under S. 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule of Act of 1996 - Cl.64(7) of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) stated Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any statutory modification thereof shall apply to arbitration proceedings - This signified an agreement between parties to apply amended provisions automatically unless expressly waived in writing - Both parties have some and other times invoked amended provisions - For instance, respondent's S.33 application referred to "Amendment Act, 2015" - This was indicative of implied agreement under S. 26 - 2015 Amendment which introduced S.12(5) was thus applicable to instant case - Since no waiver existed, Tribunal's composition was contrary to S. 12(5) - Award and Supplementary Award were void ab initio and violated public policy - Both awards were set aside - Petitioner-bidder was granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies. (Para 37, 46, 48, 50, 51)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.203, S.482 - Dismissal of complaint - On grounds that petitioner had no locus standi and published image was bona fide advertisement with photograph blurred, so it did not constitute offence - Petitioner had filed complaint alleging that Dainik Bhaskar news paper, had published and printed almost nude photo of woman - Advertisement for video "Players of Sizzle" showed nude woman, but her breasts and genitals were blurred, with words "GET READY TO SIZZLE" written in bold on her body - Photograph published in Dainik Bhaskar, Rewa edition did not depict breasts or genitals and therefore, could not corrupt or deprave minds of readers - Elements of offences under Ss.292 and 293 IPC and Ss.3, 4, and 6 of 1986 Act were not established and there was insufficient evidence to proceed or take cognizance - Trial and Revisional Courts thoroughly examined facts and evidence in light of applicable legal principles and no illegality was found - Order of dismissal of complaint was proper. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Annual Performance Appraisal Report - Remarks challenged - Claim of the employee that the superior officers out of grudge and bias made adverse remarks and gave below benchmark grading in the appraisal report ruining his career - Plea that the superiors officer were involved in corrupt practices and petitioner employee did not join them but reported it due to which adverse remarks were made in APAR - Employee had produced Office Order directing enquiry against the superior officers which was not denied by the employer - APAR of the employee reflected malafides as revenge of the complaint made - Term "I agree" used by the second officer without disclosing any reason, representation of the employee challenging the adverse and downgrading remarks was rejected after 13 months which was to be disposed of within 30 days - APAR for 2018-19, was accepted by an incompetent authority, who had observed the petitioner for 44 days instead of 90 as provided - Same were violation of clauses of the Standing Order - Further the accepting authority itself admitted that "no shortcomings in the petitioner's professional performance" but that there were "personal issues with the CO" which affected relations which proved the bias - Inconsistency in the report where the Officer acknowledged the task completed but concluded that he did not take orders seriously - Superior officer had conducted themselves with bias and malice towards the petitioner employee - Hence, report was quashed and direction was issued to conduct a review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for next promotion. (Para 16,19,20,21,22,24,25,26,27)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S.13(1)(ia) - Divorce - Ground of cruelty - Parties were living separately for period of more than 16 years - Wife was not ready to live with husband, therefore, marriage between couple was virtually dead - Relationship of both parties must end as its continuation is causing cruelty parties - In view of fact that marital relationship between parties was broken down irretrievably, divorce was granted. (Para 11, 19, 20)

(A) Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17, S. 49 - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 10 - Relief of specific performance - Entitlement - Vendee had entered into an agreement with the Vendor to buy a piece of land, paid Rs. 55,000/- as advance, and the rest amount was to be paid when the sale deed was executed - Vendor sold the suit land to a third party as a result the Vendee sought relief of specific performance of contract - Trial Court held the sale made to the third party as invalid and ordered in favour of Vendee - An unregistered sale agreement can be considered for granting relief of specific performance - Vendee had proven his readiness and willingness to complete the deal - Order of Trial Court granting relief of specific performance was upheld. (Para 27)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.311 - Power of Court to recall witness - Survivor (prosecutrix) in a POCSO trial had earlier deposed under confusion due to pendency of multiple cases of similar nature and narrated facts of another case involving a different accused - Prosecution had sought her recall for clarification - Object of S.311 of Cr.PC is to empower the Court to summon or recall a witness if same is essential for just decision of the case - Though operative portion of impugned order did not explicitly assign reasons, body of order reflected detailed grounds urged by prosecution, that survivor had confused incidents of two different cases due to her mental condition - No prejudice had been caused to accused - Application was rightly allowed. (Para 5, 6)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S.5 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S.115 - Revision petition - Condonation of delay of 18 days - Petitioner challenged order Dt: 09.12.2024 passed by Special Judicial Officer - Petitioner had applied for certified copy on 10.12.2024 and received it only on 19.02.2025 due to court holidays - Further delay occurred due to death of his brother - Respondent's objection that delay actually amounted to about 5 yrs, reckoned from an earlier order dated 12.07.2019, was found misconceived since only order dated 09.12.2024 was impugned - Delay being satisfactorily explained, was condoned. (Para 10, 11, 13)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 16 - Recruitment - Medical fitness - Candidate for post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs declared medically unfit by Primary Medical Board on ground of scoliosis with Cobb's angle of 20 - Review Medical Board also affirmed unfitness on basis of X-ray and HRCT findings - Expert medical opinion obtained by Court confirmed curvature beyond permissible limit of 10% - Adequate opportunity afforded through detailed and review medical examinations - Review Medical Examination report was proper. (Para 7)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Stay of Proceedings - Prayer for stay of trial in CBI case - Allegation of defrauding Meghalaya Rural Bank - Accused contended that dispute was purely civil in nature arising out of non-refund of loan - Reliance was placed on alleged settlement with bank and part-payments made - Contention that charge of cheating and forgery was not made out as no fraudulent intention at inception was shown - Alleged compromise was not part of charge-sheet and bank was not impleaded - Sufficiency of evidence cannot be assessed prior to trial - No ground was made out for staying criminal proceeding. (Para 5, 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Appointment without formal order - Effect - Post of Teacher - Petitioner, though functioning as teachers' representative, had been working without any formal order of appointment - In absence of such appointment, no vested right accrues to continue teaching or to claim any teachers' post - As she was pursuing MTET Certification, it shall be open for her to apply for vacant post as and when she obtains requisite qualification. (Para 5)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Termination of service - Non-supply of enquiry report - Effect of - Post of Teacher -Adverse findings in enquiry report formed basis of directions issued to initiate civil and criminal proceedings - However, such enquiry report had not been furnished to delinquent despite oral request - Non-supply of report amounts to violation of principles of natural justice - He was entitled to opportunity to file objections to report and to be heard before any adverse action was founded thereon - Order of termination was set aside. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Pensionary benefits - Effect of pending maintenance proceedings - Petitioner sought release of pensionary benefits - His wife contended that he had deserted her and that proceedings for maintenance were pending before District Council Court, so, her objection ought to have been considered before release of pension - Contention was misconceived - Proceedings relating to enhancement of maintenance had no nexus or connection with pensionary and terminal benefits payable to him. (Para 9, 10)

(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S. 18 - Incidental charges - Grant of - Legality - Reference Court, concluded that claimant, apart from compensation award, was also entitled to incidental charges - Plea that Reference Court had held that compensation for land acquired was based on tripartite agreement, there was no occasion for Collector to carry out enquiry to determine compensation payable and therefore, there cannot be any incidental charges - In order granting incidental charges also, no finding was rendered as to why same was incurred, but only that there was no occasion for Collector to carry out enquiry for compensation - In Tripartite agreement, what was noted had not been tested in evidence as to its veracity and authenticity about contents - Matter was remanded. (Para 6, 7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Alokdia VEC - Resignation dispute - Appellants, claiming to be erstwhile President and Secretary of Alokdia VEC, challenged dismissal of their writ petition which was based on a letter of resignation - They contended that their signatures had been forcibly obtained by private respondents and that said resignation letter was later returned to them, showing it was never acted upon - State respondents had expressed inability to confirm whether letter relied on by private respondents was genuine or whether it had been used for reconstitution of VEC - Private respondents, on the other hand, alleged that appellants forged signatures of job holders to retain office beyond their term of three years - State respondents shall conduct an enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties and verify relevant records, pending such enquiry, reconstituted VEC shall continue to function. (Para 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Certified photocopies of the electoral roll - Prayer for supply of - Petitioner had sought directions to respondent authorities to furnish and supply extract certified photocopies of electoral roll of petitioner, for his Father and for his Grandfather for relevant years - Directions were sought in view of fact that same were necessary for production before Foreigners Tribunal to show that petitioner and his predecessors were Indian citizens - Though Manual on Electoral Rolls allowed applicant to apply for certified copy of entry pertaining only to himself, however in facts and circumstances of case, Court directed authorities to supply extract certified copies of electoral rolls about his father and grandfather. (Para 5)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 439 - Bail - Recovery of 589 grams of heroin - Conscious possession - Minor discrepancies in vehicle registration number not fatal - Evidence of police officials held to carry same evidentiary value as that of independent witnesses - Delay in trial, when partly attributable to accused himself, not a ground for bail - Mere prolonged incarceration or pendency of trial held not sufficient to override statutory bar under S.37 - Bail denied. (Para 24,25,26)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S.5 - Condonation of delay - Delay of 96 days in filing review petition - Sufficient cause was shown, which prevented petitioners from filing the review petition within prescribed period - Delay was condoned. (Para 3, 4)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 47, R. 1, S. 114 - Review petition - Error apparent - Petitioners had failed to explain delay of 72 days in filing appeal - There was a clear admission on part of petitioners regarding work executed by respondent - Payment claimed by respondent was resisted only on ground that work was executed by respondent without technical sanction/administrative approval - Said plea was not acceptable - It was not a fit case for recalling our judgment passed in appeal which was more or less based on admission of petitioners before the writ Court - There was no error apparent on face of record which would persuade to recall judgment passed in appeal - Review petition was dismissed. (Para 9, 10, 11)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Recovery of excess payment - Permissibility - Salary/pensionary benefits were paid to employees due to erroneous fixation of pay by employer, not attributable to any misrepresentation or fraud by the employees - Recovery of such excess payment, particularly after superannuation of employees, was impermissible. (Para 7)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.152, S.157 - Conditional order for removal of nuisance - Scope - Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a conditional order under S. 152 BNSS directing removal of a non-functional vehicle and construction material from alleged public pathway - Petitioner contended that suit land was private and not a public passage - Since the order was conditional and not yet made absolute, proper course was to direct authority to consider objections and proceed as per S.157 of BNSS before taking further action - Till such consideration, conditional order was not to be given effect to. (Para 3, 4)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Writ petition - Locus standi - Petitioner not a resident of concerned village and not a job card holder under the concerned Village Employment Council (VEC) - Petitioner failed to show any material to substantiate that he has any locus - Affidavit in writ petition itself reflects that petitioner was a resident of different Village and not of concerned village - No materials, such as, register of job card holders showing his name has been furnished by petitioner - Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain writ petition challenging affairs of the said VEC. (Para 3, 4, 5)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), S. 3 - Writ petition- Alternate remedy - From reliefs prayed in writ petition, it was evident that petitioner had an alternative remedy under provisions of Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 - As petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing complaint/application, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file complaint/application within two month from date of receipt of order before concerned authority. (Para 3, 6)

(A) M. P. Accommodation Control Act (41 of 1961), S.12(1)(a), (e), (f), (h) - Eviction - Bonafide requirement - Subordinate Courts decreed landlords' suit on grounds of arrears of rent, bonafide need for residence and business, and requirement for rebuilding - Relationship of landlord and tenant between parties was duly established - Tenant failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in concurrent findings - Findings on bonafide requirement are findings of fact not giving rise to a substantial question of law - Second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn - Tenant was granted time to vacate premises subject to stipulated conditions. (Para 6, 7, 8, 10)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Contributory Negligence - Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur - Truck parked in the middle of road during night hours without any lights or warning signs 0 Motorcyclist dying after collision - Tribunal attributing 50% contributory negligence to deceased on ground that motorcycle carried milk drums - Such finding not based on any legal evidence - Mere carriage of milk drums did not constitute contributory negligence unless it was proximate cause of accident - Parking of vehicle without lights or warning amounted to gross negligence - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied - Entire liability fastened on driver of stationary truck and insurer. (Para 15,16,17)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (1988), S. 168 - Quantum of Compensation - Assessment of compensation - Multiplier of 17 applied - Future prospects @ 40% added - Amounts under conventional heads enhanced - Total compensation raised to Rs. 11,33,568/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of petition till realization - Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount. (Para 22, 23, 24, 25)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 304 Part II, S. 302 - Culpable homicide amounting to murder - - Intention to cause death - Absence of - Accused was charged with the offence of murder for causing death of the victim - Accused, in a sudden quarrel, assaulted the deceased with a lathi, causing injuries on non-vital parts of the body which resulted in death of the victim due to shock and haemorrhage - Death caused due to shock and haemorrhage from lathi injuries - No injuries were found on vital parts like the head - No clear evidence of intention to kill was on record - Case under S. 304 Part II IPC was made out - Accused was in jail since 6 years as a result, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone - Conviction under S. 302 IPC was modified to as under S. 304 Part II IPC . (Para 13)

(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (37 of 1967), S. 43D (5) - Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 439 - Bail - Denial of - Challenge against - Co-accused persons were in contact with Pakistan-based Inter Services Agency, which was engaged in destabilising Indian Union by exhorting proscribed organisations to indulge in narco-terror activities - It was alleged that there was meeting of accused wherein co-accused gave direction for recruitment of youngsters in Jammu Kashmir Ghaznabi Force in collaboration with each other and include them in Outfit - Trial court referred to nature of accusations against accused and recorded that it was difficult to frame opinion at this stage, had virtually abdicated its statutory duty to arrive at satisfaction as contemplated u/S. 43D(5), thereby rendering its reasoning unsustainable in law - Since accused had approached trial court for grant of bail on ground that material available before court was not sufficient enough to even raise suspicion about his involvement in commission of unlawful activities, it was incumbent upon trial court to have framed opinion on whether grounds so urged by accused made out case for bail or not - Order denying bail was quashed - Matter was remanded. (Para 4, 5, 7)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.39, Rr.1, 2 - Temporary injunction - Entitlement - Plaintiffs alleged prior agreement to purchase land and sought injunction to restrain further sale - An agreement to sell does not create any right, title or interest in property - Only a registered sale deed conveys ownership - Plaintiffs were neither in possession nor shown performance of their part of contract - Therefore, not entitled to protection under S.53A of T.P. Act - No prima facie case or balance of convenience was shown - Sale in favour of subsequent purchasers was valid - Order rejecting injunction was proper. (Para 6, 7)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.173 - Award of compensation - Appeal by Insurance Company - Grounds of collusion and breach of policy - FIR was initially lodged against unknown vehicle - Later insured vehicle was implicated - Allegation of fabrication and false implication was not proved - Evidence of investigator was not supported by any independent or reliable material - Findings of Tribunal were based on proper appreciation of evidence - Tribunal justified in awarding compensation - No interference warranted. (Para 6)

(A) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S.53A - Protection under part performance - When not available - Defendant claimed possession of house on basis of agreement of sale for consideration and alleged payment of advance - Trial Court decreed plaintiff's suit for possession on basis of ownership but found no landlord-tenant relationship - First Appellate Court reversed finding, holding existence of landlord-tenant relationship and decreed eviction with arrears of rent - Defendant neither filed suit for specific performance nor counter-claim seeking protection of possession under S.53A of TPA or refund of amount - Possession, therefore, was not protected - Findings of subordinate Courts were based on evidence, hence no interference. (Para 4, 5, 6)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 376 - Rape - Appreciation of evidence - Appellant accused was convicted for committing rape on the prosecutrix while she had gone to discharge her natural calls - Allegations of prosecutrix were corroborated by medical evidence and testimony of other prosecution witnesses - Defence of the accused as regards love affair with the prosecutrix and her consent to the sexual relationship was not substantiated by any evidence - No material was on record to discredit the testimony of prosecutrix - Sentence for life imprisonment was reduced to period already undergone considering age, character, antecedents, and substantial incarceration of 17 years underwent - Conviction was upheld and sentence was modified. (Para 14, 15)

(A) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act (16 of 2018), S. 13(1)(a), S. 13(2) - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 420 - Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 300-A, Art. 19(1)(g) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 106 - Civil Writ petition - Maintainability - Determination of nature of proceeding as civil or criminal - Petitioners were accused of cheating and corruption as a result the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) sealed the automobile showrooms of the petitioners during investigation under S. 106 BNSS - Petitioners filed Civil Writ Petitions challenging the action of ACB as ultra vires and violative of Art. 300-A and Art.19(1)(g) - Bench deciding the matter was assigned with a roster to decide civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings - Held, the nature of proceedings must be determined not merely by the rights infringed or relief sought, but also by the source and nature of power exercised - Since the action of sealing the premises arose out of search and seizure in connection with a pending criminal investigation under BNSS, the proceedings were held to be criminal in nature - Hence, civil writ petition was not maintainable. (Para 50)

(A) Railways Act (24 of 1989), S. 124A, S. 123C - Compensation - Untoward incident - Death due to fall from train - Rejection of claim by Railway Tribunal on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as he did not possess a valid ticket - Railway identity card and season pass was produced even though a ticket was not recovered - Co-passenger testified as witness and deposed that the deceased fell from train due to overcrowding and pushing - Police investigation report confirmed the cause of death to be falling from a running train - DRM report failed to substantially prove that the Identity Pass to deceased was not associated with any season ticket - No specific evidence in contrary was adduced by the Railways - Held, deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident - Claimants were entitled for compensation. (Para 17, 18, 19, 20)

(A) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S.2(b) - Contempt of Court - Non-compliance of Court directions - Via order direction was issued to respondents to consider and release petitioner's unpaid salary, gratuity, GPF, and benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commissions by passing a reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing - Despite service of order, compliance was not made within the prescribed period, leading to issuance of bailable warrants of ?30,000 against respondent - On subsequent hearing, respondent appeared virtually and assured that gratuity would be credited immediately and remaining dues within two weeks - Though finding conduct prima facie contemptuous, Court deferred initiation of contempt proceedings in view of assurance and directed listing of matter for final compliance. (Para 4, 5, 6, 7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Police protection - Inter-faith marriage - Right to Life and Liberty - Major couple sought protection from family members - Petitioners married of their own free will - Direction issued to authorities to examine petitioners' grievance and extend protection if marriage found to be lawful. (Para 5)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Running of medical clinic in R-2 residential zone - Requirement of NOC from J and K Housing Board - Scope - Under Jammu Master Plan 2032 read with UBBL-2021, running of a medical clinic in an R-2 residential zone does not amount to change of land use from residential to commercial and is a permissible activity - Once user charges are being accepted by municipal authority, it is estopped from objecting to petitioner's activity without just cause. Administrative Department having already recommended consideration of such clinics without insisting upon NOC from Housing Board - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation was directed to decide petitioner's case in light of said recommendation within stipulated period. (Para 7)

(A) Haryana Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations (1973), Regn.2, Cl.41 - Constitution of India, Art.309, Art.320(3)(b), Art.14, Art.16 - Appointment - Screening Test pattern - Test of reasonableness - Post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) - Commission altered screening pattern by excluding subjects such as criminal law, evidence, and procedure which are essential for testing legal accumen possessed by candidates, instead, it included questions of general knowledge, reasoning, current affairs, language and allied topics was arbitrary - Such screening test pattern failed test of reasonableness and relevance to post as well as of giving equal opportunity to all in public employment by excluding significant and deserving segment of candidates prematurely and unfairly process defeated very purpose of recruiting best legal talent for public service - Screening test pattern was quashed as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art.16 of Constitution. (Para .)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.16, R.1 - Summoning of Doctor - To interpret medical records - Applicant sought to summon a Doctor from a Govt. institution to interpret medical records maintained by a private hospital - Such request was improper and unnecessary - Doctor sought to be summoned neither treated testator nor had any connection with hospital maintaining records - Since private i.e. Apollo Speciality Hospital was very much in existence and had competent doctors acquainted with its medical record system, applicant ought to have sought assistance from such doctors attached to that hospital - Application was dismissed. (Para 6, 7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Dismissal from service - Proportionality of punishment - Delinquent was appointed as a Sub- Inspector charged for allegedly staying unreasonably absent from the duty without due permission for 645 days - Delinquent submitted compelling reason for remaining absent from duty due to illness - But failed to substantiate or explain his long absence - Disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him for negligence and in-subordination - Delinquent was removed from service after due enquiry and his long absence was treated as leave without pay - Delinquent preferred after 10 years of order of dismissal being passed - Court cannot re-decide the punishment imposed after a due departmental proceeding unless it is unreasonable - Disciplinary proceeding conducted was fair and justified - Dismissal from service was valid. (Para 6, 7)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 7, R. 14(3) - Delay in production of documents - Effect - Procedural laws are handmaids of justice and cannot be used to obstruct substantial justice - Mere delay in filing documents cannot by itself be a ground to reject their reception, unless such production would derail entire proceedings or necessitate a new trial - Relevancy and admissibility of documents are questions to be determined at trial and not at stage of receiving them - Order of Trial Court allowing reception of documents was proper. (Para 9, 11, 12)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.11 - Rejection of plaint - Dismissal of application - Ground that earlier petition filed for rejection of plaint was rejected and second petition on similar ground was not entertainable - Application for rejection of plaint was filed on ground that suit was barred by limitation - Suit between parties was filed in year 2017 - Petitioner-defendants had not filed its written statement yet - Grounds/questions raised by petitioner in its petitions under O.7,R.11 of Code could be very well raised/taken by them in its written statement - Hence, order rejecting application was not proper and set aside - Liberty was granted to petitioner to raise all questions/grounds those were raised by it in its petitions under Order-7,
Rule 11 of Code for rejection of plaint in its written statement. (Para 8)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528 - Quashing of proceedings - Application for - Allegations that accused who works in a nearby furniture shop came in absence of complainant in his house and sexually assaulted his daughter - Since, offences lodged against accused were very serious in nature and prima-facie made out a case against accused, it was essential for ends of justice that accused should be subjected to a proper trial - As prima-facie case was made out against accused and charge-sheet was submitted and accused was summoned after cognizance, Court cannot enter into merits of case at this stage - Proceedings were not quashed. (Para 9, 11)

(A) Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (6 of 1978), S. 8 - Constitution of India, Art. 22(5) - Preventive detention - Failure to communicate decision on representation - Effect - Detenue was not provided with complete copies of grounds of detention and supporting materials in language he understands, thus, violating Art. 22(5) of Constitution - Detenue was not referred to Advisory Board prior to detention, which was contrary to statutory requirements - Representation of detenue seeking revocation of detention order was not duly considered - Detention order appeared to be based on stale allegations and lacked sufficient evidence to justify preventive detention - Respondents failed to demonstrate that procedural safeguards under PSA and Constitution were strictly followed - Consideration and rejection of representation of petitioner was not communicated to detenue and it was only first time detenue came to know about consideration and rejection of representation of petitioner when respondents filed their counter affidavit - Failure to communicate decision on representation vitiates order of detention - Accordingly, detention order was quashed. (Para 11, 12, 14)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of charge-sheet - Prayer for - Accused, a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, was prosecuted under Ss.265, 266, 419, 420 of IPC and Ss. 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act for alleged tampering with dispensing unit seal at petrol pump - As regards offences relating to the weights and measures, provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and not the provisions of Ss. 265 and 266 of IPC would apply - Prosecution of applicant u/Ss. 265 and 266 IPC was not maintainable - However, offences u/Ss. 419 and 420 of IPC and u/S. 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act are not covered under the Act of 2009 - Though applicant had suffered civil consequences in the nature of termination of dealership, criminal prosecution in respect of the same transaction would not be barred - Proceedings were quashed only as regards offences under Ss. 265, 266 of IPC (Para 15, 22, 23, 24, 25)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.227 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.39, Rr.1, 2 - Temporary injunction - Refusal - Legality - Plaintiff filed suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of shop alleged to have been allotted to him by municipal authorities - Respondents issued notice of eviction alleging encroachment and subsequently demolished shop - Application for temporary injunction with a prayer that new shops will be allotted on actual expenditure and to maintain status-quo due to demolition, was rejected by Trial Court on ground that plaintiff was encroacher and not entitled to protection - Refusal to grant temporary injunction, was proper, however, direction issued not to allot only one shop to anyone till final disposal of civil suit. (Para 4, 6)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.14, R.3, O.14, R.5, S.151 - Framing of additional issues - When not necessary - Petitioner sought for framing additional issues relating to title and possession over ancestral land - Trial Court had already framed comprehensive issues based on pleadings of parties, particularly Issue No.1 covering the question whether plaintiff and certain defendants were title holders of disputed land by succession - Additional issues sought were repetitive and already encompassed within existing issues - Rejection of application was proper. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Compassionate appointment - Relevant date of eligibility - Post of Laboratory Teacher. - Petitioner's claim was rejected on 2 occasions, despite earlier directions of Court to reconsider matter - Rejection was on ground that he did not possess B.Ed./D.L.Ed. qualification and that dependents of employees in teacher cadre could not be considered for Class-IV posts - Rejection of his claim on basis of amended Rules cannot be sustained as he had attained majority prior to 01.12.2022 and his father had expired in 2015 - Relevant date for determining eligibility for compassionate appointment is date of death of employee, or at the most, date on which dependent attains majority, and not the date of consideration - Direction issued to reconsider his case in accordance with unamended provisions of the M.P. School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018. (Para 6, 7, 8)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Entry of higher qualification in service record - Legality of refusal - Petitioner, appointed as Staff Nurse, had already completed two years of M.Sc. (Nursing) course before appointment - Only examination remained which she appeared in after applying for leave from 03.10.2021 to 08.10.2021 - Leave was not refused - After obtaining degree, she sought entry of qualification in service record - Rejected, on ground that qualification was acquired without permission of department relying on relevant circular - Relevant circular was not applicable as she had already completed studies prior to appointment and only examination was left - Direction issued to record her PG qualification in service record. (Para 7, 8)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 38 - Permanent injunction - Restraining defendant from taking forcible possession of suit land - Jamabandi relied upon by defendant as well as sale deed, clearly showed that defendant was owner of Khasra No. 927 and had no ownership or concern with Khasra No. 928/1 on basis of any title deed - Defendant was attempting to create confusion by claiming portion of land that falls within Khasra No. 928/1 by unlawfully combining it with Khasra No. 927 - Plaintiff succeeded in proving due execution of sale deed in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 928/1-2 min - Except for oral assertions that defendant had been in possession of plot since 1958, there was no substantive evidence available to establish his continuous, open, and hostile possession over vacant plot - Furthermore, claim of defendant was solely based on adverse possession - However, in case of vacant plot, possession generally follows ownership, unless proven otherwise - Defendant failed to prove his adverse possession over suit land - Plaintiff was entitled to injunction sought for. (Para 12, 14, 15)

(A) Companies Act (18 of 2013), S.8, S.7 - Withdrawal of company registration certificate - Legality - Powers of Registrar - Certificate issued by statutory authority based on official records could be withdrawn only if obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts - However, instant registration certificate was founded solely on pre-existing official data and not on any misrepresentation by appellant-Company - Purpose for which certificate was sought i.e., submission to the Income Tax Department could not restrict its production before other forums such as NCLT - Validity of such registration was already sub judice before the NCLT - Single Judge erred in holding that ROC would not have issued certificate if it had known of pending proceedings before NCLT - NCLT may adjudicate on appellant's eligibility to remain a S. 8 company - Its withdrawal by Registrar was without jurisdiction and arbitrary - Order of Single Judge and withdrawal order of ROC was set aside - Certificate dated 24.01.2025 was restored.

(A) Registration Act (16 of 1908), S.17(1A) - Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S.53A - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34, S.38, S.41(h) - Suit for declaration of ownership and injunction - To restrain vendors from selling property to others - Defendant/vendee had purchased property from plaintiff/vendor under a registered sale deed - Plaintiffs' suit sought only declaration and injunction on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell, without claiming specific performance - Such suit was not maintainable, as per S.41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, since an equally efficacious remedy of specific performance was available - Further, protection of possession based on an unregistered agreement was impermissible in view of S.17(1A) of the Registration Act and S.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which deny benefit of part performance to unregistered agreements - Unregistered agreement confers no enforceable right or protection of possession - Finding no substantial question of law, the Second Appeals were dismissed at the admission stage - Order of Appellate Court directing plaintiff to hand over possession of suit property to defendant was proper. (Para 21,22,24,25,26,27,30)

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S. 60, S. 63, S. 36-C, S. 51 - Seizure of vehicle - Interim custody - Petitioner had sought release of his Bolero vehicle seized under the NDPS Act and trial Court had rejected his prayer for interim custody, it was held that neither the NDPS Act nor the NDPS Rules, 2022, imposed any express bar on Special Court to grant interim custody of a seized conveyance pending trial - Confiscation under Ss.60 and 63 NDPS Act was a distinct proceeding to be undertaken after conclusion of trial and by virtue of Ss.36-C and 51 NDPS Act, the provisions of Ss.451 and 457 Cr.P.C. could be invoked for release of property during trial - Order set aside - Direction issued for release of the vehicle on Supurdagi with appropriate conditions. (Para 15,16,17,18)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.483 - Bail - Prayer for - Offence of illegal possession of contrabands - Allegations that 11.01 grams of heroin, 40,000/- and electronic weighing machine was found in possession of accused - Defence of accused that cash was for medical treatment of her minor daughter suffering from cystic lesion - Recovery of contraband was far below commercial quantity - S.37 of NDPS applies only for commercial quantity thus does not apply here - No prima facie evidence of financing illicit trafficking, hence S.27A NDPS was not justified - Accused has no prior involvement in drug offences - Accused was entitled to grant of bail. (Para 7,8,9)

(A) Ranbir Penal Code (12 of 1989 Smvt.), S.302, S.307 - Murder and attempt to murder - Conviction - Allegations that on account of dispute over bus stand booking counter, accused with other assaulted deceased and other resulting in death - Both deceased died on spot and injured thrown out of window - Eye-witness was unreliable and contradictory - Statement of other witness was delayed - No TIP for accused - Deceased had criminal backgrounds and were aggressors - Police arrived late, suggesting manipulation - Accused stated that he fired to protect protectee from assault and firing lacked intention at most culpable homicide not murder - There was dispute between parties and not sudden quarrel - Recovery of weapon and multiple witness confirmed presence of accused - Defence of accused failed to dislodged credible evidence - Testimony of injured witness has higher evidentiary value - Minor contradiction and criminal past was not sufficient for rejection - Witnesses confirm firing, injuries and chaos - Police and medical evidence reinforce prosecution story - Accused fired 8 rounds from service rifle and 22 cartridges recovered from him later - Dispute over transport counter and prior enmity established - Presence with weapons shows premeditation - Investigation proper and fair, prosecution evidence was reliable, hence conviction was proper. (Para 27 to 35)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S. 5 - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act (28 of 1971), S. 35 - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Appeal preferred against order of Competent Authority was dismissed by Grievance Redressal Committee due to inordinate delay of eight years in filing the appeal - Appellant pleaded that the delay was unintentional and that he was unaware of the order passed by the Authority - Cause stated for inordinate delay was held to be insufficient - Hence, delay in filing the appeal was not condoned. (Para 11)

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant finance company alleged that accused defaulted in payment of installments in a hire purchase agreement and subsequently issued a cheque for repayment of loan which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds - Agreement described a typical hire purchase transaction, not a loan - Complainant retained ownership of vehicle, and there was no conclusive evidence that amount advanced was a loan - Complainant failed to prove that signatory of complaint was authorized to file complaint on behalf of finance company - Accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions under Ss.118 and 139 of the N.I. Act by establishing a probable defence through cross-examination and documentary evidence - Burden on accused was only to prove his case on a preponderance of probabilities - Complainant failed to establish existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability and defence raised was sufficiently probable - Acquittal was proper. (Para 8,9,10,13)

(A) Odisha Excise Rules (2017), R.33, R.31 - Odisha Excise Act (10 of 2013), S.90 - Shifting of IMFL ON shop - Challenge against - Ground that after renewal of license, objections should not have been entertained in midway in terms of provisions contained in R.33 of Rules - Notice was issued by Collector to shift shop on ground that Self Help Group (SHG) mahila committee raised objection demanding shifting of shop - R.33 (2) of Rules of 2017p prohibits any suggestions or objections to be entertained after period provided under R.31 of Rules of 2017 had expired - No justification on part of Collector in directing shifting of shop solely on basis of objection filed by intervening parties after statutory period under R.31 had expired - Prohibition created under sub-rule (2) of R.33 of Rules required to be strictly adhered to and such objection should have been 'summarily rejected' - Hence, notice issued by Collector was quashed. (Para 6.2,8)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34 - Declaration of title - Record showed that plaintiff had failed to produce any proof whatsoever that his vendor was ever in possession of suit property let alone owner thereof - Only witness to prove possession of plaintiff over suit plot was plaintiff himself, which was not sufficient - Plaintiff claimed that sale deed in favour of defendant was forged and fabricated as vendor of defendant died prior to date of execution of sale deed - However, death certificate relied on by plaintiff was not proved in accordance with law - Defendant had duly proved execution of sale deed in his favour by examining witness - Signature of vendor of defendant was duly proved - Plaintiff had not only failed to prove execution of sale deed but had also failed to challenge sale deed - Plaintiff was not entitled to relief claimed. (Para 9, 10)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Compensation - Death claim - Deceased was aged about 29 years earning Rs.10,500/- p.m. - Addition of 40% made towards future prospects - Deduction of 1/4th made towards personal expenses - Multiplier of 17 applied - Rs. 44,000/- to each claimant was awarded towards consortium - Rs.16,500/- each awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses - Tribunal had awarded reasonable compensation - No interference was warranted. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302, S.304 Part I, S.100 - Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Determination - There was sudden dispute between accused and deceased, and deceased armed with knife, not only attacked accused but also his wife and daughter, who intervened to save accused, and later, accused in exercise of right of self-defence, caused injuries to deceased by knife resulting in his death - Accused had sustained grievous stab injury damaging his liver, and his wife and daughter were also got injuries in incident - However, it was apparent from face of record that right of private defence was exceeded by accused - Accused should have stopped causing injuries to deceased when he was disarmed - Thus, though there was right of private defence available to accused, but he exceeded that right, which brings offence within purview of S.304 Part-I - Conviction was altered from S.302 to S.304 Part-I of Penal Code. (Para 25, 31, 33, 35)

(A) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (11 of 1963), S. 14B, S. 9, S. 74 - Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules (2016), R. 4(8) - Modified Plan - Sanction regarding - Petitioner had filed an application seeking NOC for modified plan from Karnataka Fire Service Department on 22.02.2017 - However, as on that date, S. 14B of KTCP Act was amended and Rules were notified - BBMP had framed rules regarding permissibility of norms relating to set backs and cannot sanction a plan contrary to Rules - In terms of Rules, set back relaxation was confined to 25% - Modified Plan was not in conformity with said norms - No directions could be issued for sanction of Modified Plan - Order directing BBMP to sanction Modified Plan, permitting petitioner to utilise TDR certificate cannot be sustained. (Para 21, 32, 34)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Availability of alternate remedy - Petitioner was aggrieved by order of cancellation of PDS license - Alternate remedy available to petitioner of filing representation available under Cl.32 (vii) of Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order - Petitioner was directed to file representation within two months. (Para 5,6)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of FIR - FIR was registered u/Ss. 324, 341, 34 of Penal Code - Parties to dispute arrived at amicable settlement and resolved matter - Compromise deed was submitted on record - Continuation of criminal prosecution would be futile exercise - Hence, FIR was quashed. (Para 10)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of FIR - FIR was registered u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 of Penal Code - Parties to dispute arrived at amicable settlement and resolved matter - Complainant had no objection in case FIR and all proceedings against accused was quashed - Offences alleged were private in nature - Considering compromise entered into between parties - FIR was quashed. (Para 8)

(A) J & K Land Revenue Act (12 of 1996), S. 11, S. 13, S. 15 - Mutation entry - Suo motu cancellation - Legality - Petitioners owned a land allotted to them under a Government Order and had obtained mutation entries in their names - Deputy Commissioner cancelled the mutation entry of the petitioners on the ground that the suit land was a Ghair Mumkin Jungle" (uncultivable forest land) and could not be allotted ab initio - Mutation entry was cancelled suo motto by the Deputy Commissioner without granting any chance of hearing to the petitioners and without any notice - Under the Act of 1996, the Deputy Commissioner can hear appeals but cannot cancel a mutation suo motu neither does he have any revisional powers - Held, principles of natural justice were not adhered to while passing the order of cancellation of mutation entry - Suo motu cancellation of mutation entry was illegal. (Para 14, 15)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 483 - Bail - Prayer for - Offences under Ss. 302, 201, 120B, 34 of IPC and S. 25 of Arms Act - Allegation that accused was an active conspirator and participant and also involved in recce of deceased and had informed co-accused persons about movement and possession of deceased and this information facilitate murder of deceased who was shot dead by co-accused persons - Accused was in Judicial Custody since approximately 5 years - Charge-sheet was already filed and investigation was completed - Charges were also framed, and matter was at stage of Prosecution Evidence - Out of all 49 witnesses, chief examination of only one Public Witness was conducted - Trial was likely to take longer time to get concluded - Accused was a permanent resident of Delhi having family ties and relations - There was nothing to show that he was likely to abscond - Prosecution had submitted that on account of threats to witnesses, PSO were provided to them - However, there was no assertion that threats were emanating from accused - Bail was granted subject to certain conditions. (Para 35, 36)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Promotion - Post of Executive Engineer - Challenge against impugned order directing authority to regularise promotion of respondent from date on which he was given current duty charge of that post as he held that post continuously till regular promotion - Respondent admitted that he was not eligible for promotion to post in question - Promotion was denied by authorities to respondent on ground that status quo was maintained by Supreme Court on ground that authority could not hold DCP - Promotion only become effective upon assumption of duties on promotional post and not on date of occurrence of vacancy or date of recommendation - Hence, impugned order was not proper and set aside. (Para 8,9)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.311 - Removal from service - Ground of suppression of material facts in attestation form - Delinquent was appointed as Trainee Khalasi on compassionate basis - Delinquent was removed from service on ground that at time of appointment, delinquent was convicted in criminal case and till date was not acquitted - At time of appointment criminal appeal was pending - Termination of service of delinquent was on factum of giving wrong information and delinquent had never informed authority concerned about his involvement in any criminal cases - Delinquent was given proper opportunity of hearing before passing impugned order - Hence, order of removal from service was proper. (Para 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Availability of alternate remedy - Petitioner sought to quash order by which license of PDS shop of petitioner was cancelled - Alternate remedy available to petitioner was to file revision against said order - Hence, direction issued to petitioner to file revision petition before Divisional Commissioner within two months. (Para 5)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of FIR - FIR was registered u/Ss. 406 and 420 of Penal Code - Earlier bail petition was dismissed by Coordinate bench and directions were issued to pay Rs.32.10 lacs to informant - Petitioner-accused had concealed said fact file seeking bail - Suppression/concealment of vital facts makes petition liable to be dismissed with substantive cost - Hence, petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-. (Para 7)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 10 - Judicial separation - Ground of cruelty - Not a single incident with reference to specific date of alleged cruelty was urged in plaint by respondent husband - Alleged flimsy act or omission or using some threatening and harsh words may occasionally happen in day-to-day conjugal life of a husband and wife to retaliate other spouse but that cannot be justified ground for taking divorce - Some trifling utterance or remarks or mere threatening of one spouse to other cannot be construed as such decree of cruelty, which was legally required to decree of divorce - No oral or documentary evidence was produced by respondent to prove that his father was brutally assaulted by family members of appellant wife and for which a criminal case was also registered and subsequently counter case was registered on behalf of side of appellant - Respondent-husband had failed to prove cruel behaviour of appellant wife towards him and his family members by strength of cogent, relevant and reliable evidence - Decree of judicial separation was set aside. (Para 18, 19, 20, 27)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 10 - Judicial separation - Ground of desertion - Respondent husband claimed that appellant wife had deserted respondent-husband since 2011 and since then she was living along with her children at her parents place - Just after few months of alleged desertion by appellant, respondent had filed divorce petition which indicated that respondent did not make reasonable efforts to settle dispute with appellant and hurriedly filed divorce petition - Family Court also did not take a pain to reconcile dispute between parties and without considering period of alleged desertion, had passed order for a judicial separation without considering that appellant has three children and in absence of their father, future of their children would be at stake as appellant was a housewife and had no source of income - Decree of judicial separation was set aside. (Para 21, 23, 27)

(C) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 10 - Judicial separation - Ground of adultery - Respondent husband had not brought on record name of adulterer or any proof to show that appellant wife was having illicit relationship with any person nor he has proved that they were living in adultery and only in order to make a valid ground in divorce petition, these allegations were levelled against appellant without any supporting material evidence - Decree of judicial separation was set aside. (Para 26, 27)

(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002), S.13(2) - Auction sale - Auction purchaser deposited entire sale consideration - Delay in delivery of possession by Bank - It caused demonstrable financial prejudice to the purchaser - Purchaser held entitled to claim interest on deposited amount.

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), S.6-C - Writ petition - Availability of alternate remedy - Grievance of petitioner was regarding rejection of application filed for release of seized wheat - Total quantity of 210.50 quintals of wheat was confiscated u/S.6 A of Act on ground that said wheat had been stored for purpose of black marketing - Effective alternative remedy available to petitioner was to prefer appeal u/S. 6-C of the Act - Petitioner was directed to file appeal u/S.6-C of the Act before the concerned authority. (Para 3)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.439 - Bail - Grant - Allegation of murder against accused - Veracity of prosecution case against accused and his co-accused to be adjudicated upon during course of trial - Accused was first time offender and languishing in custody for more than six months - Only 9 out of 19 prosecution witnesses were examined - Conclusion of trial likely to take time - Further incarceration of accused was not required - Hence, bail was granted. (Para 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Writ petition - Seeking to declare Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) discriminatory and claim compensation - Dismissal of - Challenge against - Petitioner had previously filed multiple writ petitions and representations regarding the VSS and arrears, some of which were disposed of or withdrawn - Single Judge rejected petition on the grounds of substantial delay, laches, and failure to establish locus as representative of an Action Committee - Petitioner was essentially reopening a scheme accepted 25 years ago - Dismissal of writ petition by Single Judge was proper. (Para 6,7,8,9)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 14 - Termination of service - Challenge against - Contractual employee - Employee was appointed as a clerk in the respondent university on contractual basis - Employment status of the employee was converted to ad-hoc while the original employment conditions remained intact - Employee was terminated from service on the grounds of criminal allegations which were later withdrawn leading to reinstatement of the employee subject to fresh enquiry - Employee was re-terminated without notice based on original appointment terms - Held, appointment, extensions and conversion to ad-hoc status were governed by the same original contractual appointment terms - Original appointment terms included the power to terminate employment without prior notice - Termination order was not punitive and made solely as per contract, neither requiring inquiry nor being based on the criminal allegations - Principle of 'last come, first go' is not applicable to contractual employees - No violation of Art. 14 - Termination of service was valid. (Para 9)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 304 Part II - Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Determination - Accused allegedly assaulted mother of informant with pawa of cot resulting in her death - Younger brother of informant was prime witness - According to his evidence, on date and time of occurrence, he was playing, meanwhile, he heard cries of his mother and went inside house then saw that accused was assaulting his mother with pawa of a cot and when accused saw him, he threatened him of dire consequences, if raised alarm or complained anyone about this occurrence then he fled away outside house - No material was elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony and there was no circumstances to consider that he was tutored rather informant himself disclosed that when he returned from his duty, witness told him about assault given to his mother by accused - Thereafter, deceased was found lying dead in her house - There was no specific opinion that injury sustained by deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature - There was no injury on vital part of body - Offence of murder was not proved rather case fell within ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/S. 304 Part II of Penal Code - Accordingly conviction was altered from S. 302 to S. 304 Part II of Penal Code. (Para 12)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia), S. 13(1)(ib), S. 25 - Divorce - Ground of cruelty and desertion - Award of permanent alimony - Husband and wife were living separately for about 20 years - Wife was residing along with both of her children whereas husband was re-married and living along with his wife and three children - There was long separation between parties and matrimonial bond was beyond repair - Both parties were not interested to continue matrimonial relationship with each other and both were ready for dissolution of marriage - Order granting divorce was proper - Moreover, husband was serving as a Constable and thereafter as a Block Development Officer - Wife had not performed second marriage - Both of her children were more than 20 years of age - Wife cannot maintain her children with a meager amount of Rs. 2500/- p.m. interim maintenance awarded to children's maintenance - She had no other source of income and she was getting a maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. as awarded by Family Court - On the other hand, husband was re-married and was leading a conjugal life with his second wife - Direction was issued to husband to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- as permanent alimony to wife. (Para 19, 21, 22, 33, 37)

(A) Registration of Births and Deaths Act (18 of 1969), S.15 - Rectification in death certificate - Issuance of fresh certificate - Due to marital disputes between petitioner and her husband, he filed divorce petition - Petitioner alleged illicit relationship between her husband and respondent - Divorce petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and later husband passed away - Plea by petitioner that she is the class-I legal heir of her husband, however, respondent appeared to have got her name reflected in the death certificate as his wife and also withdrew the insurance amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/ - Marriage of the petitioner with her husband was not dissolved by any Court of law as on the date of demise of the petitioner's husband - Live in relationship if any between the deceased husband and the respondent could not have conferred the status of wife - Documents submitted by the petitioner not considered - When an error was pointed out in the death certificate necessary corrections ought to have been made - Directions given to reissue death certificate duly reflecting the name of the petitioner as the wife of the deceased. (Para 12, 15, 17, 18)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Rash and negligent driving - Proof - Allegations that van was driven by driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed petitioner's motorcycle from behind, resulting in grievous head injuries to him - Owner of van cannot simply take an evasive stand that he did not know the particulars about driver, that too when FIR was registered against his son stating that it was his son's rash and negligent driving of van that caused accident - Evidence of driver of van as to cause and manner of accident was not reliable being son of original owner and he too supported evasive stand of owner - Scratch on left side rear end of van at skirt level and damage to front right side of petitioner's motorcycle did not conclusively point towards negligence of petitioner - Accident Information Report issued by Doctor would reveal that petitioner had suffered injuries in an accident caused by a vehicle coming from behind - Van coming from behind could have hit motorcycle on its front right portion after swerving right, which was still in line with case of petitioner that van came from behind and hit his motorcycle - Record proved that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of owner's van driven by his son. (Para 16, 17, 18)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Accident claim - Necessary party - Insurance company whether a necessary party - Accident occurred between van and motorcycle - Motorcycle belonged to injured and was insured with insurance company - In investigation report, insurance policy of motorcycle of injured was seen to be a package/comprehensive policy covering own damages as well - Further, valid driving licence of injured to drive a two wheeler with gear was found - Insurer of injured's motorcycle was not a necessary party. (Para 19)

(C) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 147, S. 149 - Liability of insurer - Pay and recover - Accident was occurred between van and motorcycle - Junior Assistant attached to RTO deposed that van lacks a valid fitness certificate - Insurance policy would reveal that van was insured with insurance company for comprehensive cover at the time of accident - Investigation Report and AIR of van established that driver of van, did not possess a valid driving licence - Violation of terms of insurance policy - Insurer was liable to pay compensation - Considering fact that compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is a scheme of social beneficial legislation, and it would be an arduous task for injured to realise compensation amount from owner of van especially given his health condition, as insurance company is in a better position to recover money from owner, in the interest of justice, tribunal was right in ordering pay and recovery on insurance company. (Para 20)

(D) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Compensation - Quantum - Considering grievous nature of injuries sustained by injured which had caused him 75 % dementia and 100% functional disability, compensation awarded by tribunal exceeding claim amount was justifiable. (Para 25, 26, 27, 37)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Back wages - Rejection of claim - Petitioner was imposed with punishment of compulsory retirement on ground of misconduct - Said order of compulsory retirement was set aside - Petitioner sought for payment of back wages for period of his compulsory retirement - Once order of compulsory retirement was set aside, alleged misconduct could not be basis to deny consequential benefits, particularly in absence of a lawful departmental enquiry establishing such misconduct - Reasoning that petitioner was a temporary employee was also untenable - Petitioner had rendered over 28 years of service, received time bound promotion and pay revision - To treat petitioner as a temporary employee for denying back wages was arbitrary - Authority had not produced any material to show that petitioner was gainfully employed during period of his compulsory retirement - Plea of double payment was equally not tenable as employee, who was illegally kept out of service, cannot be penalised for own act of termination of employer - Workman, whose service was illegally terminated would be entitled to back wages except during period of absence from duty - Order rejecting claim for back wages was set aside - Directions were issued to Authority to pay 70% of back wages to petitioner for concerned period. (Para 25, 26, 27, 29, 30)

(A) Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), S.10, S.2(k) - Industrial dispute - Decline of reference by Central Government - Legality - Petitioner Union raised industrial dispute claiming incentives under scheme before Commissioner - Later, matter was referred to Central Government but it declined to refer dispute to Tribunal on grounds that it was not fit for adjudication - As per scheme, incentives are provided based on profit and industrial unit did not even achieve nearer to desired goal - Petitioner's case that there was delay on part of Russian Agency for installing plants - Petitioner further contended that dispute regarding incentives can also be dispute under Industrial Disputes Act - It is settled law that denial of production bonus and incentive can also be referred under S.2(k) of Act - Whether petitioner union members did not perform or they were prevented from performing was matter for adjudication before labour court - Thus, order of Central Govt. declining to refer dispute was set aside - Matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Para 10, 14, 15)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art.136 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S.47 - Execution of decree - Limitation - Petitioners/judgment debtors challenged order where Executing Court held that execution petition was filed within 12-year limitation period - In title suit, decree for specific performance was passed on 24.05.1991, and sale deed was executed on 20.07.1991 - Petitioner's challenge under O.9, R.13 CPC was dismissed on 25.06.1993, and their appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.10.1996 - Petitioners pleaded that limitation began on 24.05.1991 and expired in 2003, making 2006 execution time-barred - However, applying principle of merger, held, limitation commenced from 11.10.1996, the date of dismissal of appeal - Accordingly, execution petition filed in 2006 was within limitation. (Para 13,15,16)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Compensation - Reduction of - Accident occurred when a truck collided with a jeep in which deceased was travelling as a passenger - Tribunal held both drivers equally negligent - However, since deceased was only a passenger, his case involved composite negligence, not contributory negligence - In cases of composite negligence, victim or their heirs can recover full compensation from any one of joint tortfeasors - Claimant cannot be penalized or have compensation reduced simply because one of negligent parties was not impleaded in case - Apportionment of liability is only relevant between wrongdoers themselves for recovery purposes and not for reducing victim's compensation - Therefore, Tribunal's deduction of 50% compensation being incorrect was set aside - Heirs of deceased were entitled to full compensation without any deduction. (Para 10)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.164(As amended by Amendment Act of 2019) - Fixed compensation - Retrospective applicability of S.164 as amended - S.164 is a beneficial provision and applies retrospectively, as there is no express restriction against it - Claimant was held entitled to a fixed compensation of Rs.5,00,000 under S.164 - Consequently, there was no need for fresh computation or examination of how the Tribunal had originally calculated the compensation. (Para 11)

(C) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.147 - Liability of insurer - Insurance Company pleaded that it should be exempted from liability because driver of jeep had not paid premium for driver's cover - However, after examining insurance policy it was found that a premium of ?292.50 had been paid for personal accident cover for passengers - Therefore, plea that passenger deceased was not covered was rejected - Moreover, since Insurance Company had not filed any appeal challenging its liability, Tribunal's finding on that issue had attained finality, and insurer could not raise it at this stage - Insurance Company was directed to deposit enhanced amount with Tribunal within eight weeks. (Para 12,14)

(A) Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (53 of 1961), S. 180 - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, R. 149(2) - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act (46 of 1981), S. 3(1) - Permanent employment - Status - Entitlement - Backdoor entry - Petitioners were employed as "Non-Muster Roll (NMR)" workers in a cooperative spinning mill - Employees had completed more than 480 days of work in 24 calendar months and applied for permanent status as workmen - Applications for conferment of permanent status were rejected on the grounds that the appointments were not through Employment Exchange or after proper advertisement as required by co-operative society rules - Held, as initial recruitment was not in compliance with the statutory rules and co-operative society bye-laws, appointments were illegal - Permanent status or regularization cannot be granted where initial appointment is illegal, even if the employee has rendered long service - Employees were not entitled for conferment of permanent status of employment. (Para 16, 17)

(A) Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act (17 of 1972), S. 5(1)(e) - Eviction - Default in payment of rent - Proof of default - Tenant had failed to pay rent from February 2016 to December 2017 - Mere denial of tenant, unaccompanied by any proof of payment or production of money order receipts, could not rebut the presumption of default - Objection that book of house rent maintained by wife of landlord was not duly proved was untenable in absence of cross-examination on the point - Once a tenant is a defaulter, subsequent payment cannot cure the default - Tenancy agreement, originally executed in 1987 for ten years, had expired in 1997, and no fresh agreement existed thereafter - Order of eviction was proper. (Para 13, 14, 15, 17, 18)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.2, S.34 - Suit for recovery of money - State invited tenders for constructing a Fish Shed Farm and Plaintiff's tender was accepted - Agreement and work order were issued, requiring completion within 18 months - Plaintiff claimed delays occurred due to defendants' failure to provide necessary instructions, materials, and design changes, as well as lack of de-watering facilities, forcing him to incur extra expenses - Despite repeated extensions, work was belatedly completed and final bill was paid, which plaintiff accepted under protest - Alleging loss and underpayment, suit was filed seeking Rs.7,18,086 with interest - Trial court framed issues on delay, entitlement, and interest, and after evaluating evidence from both sides, partly allowed suit in favour of plaintiff - No error of law or fact was found in order of Trial Court - Only modification made was regarding rate of interest, which was found excessive at 15% - Considering the nature and period of contract and prevailing interest rates at that time, rate was reduced to 9% p.a. as fair and reasonable. (Para 8,9)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 309 - H. P. Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules (2022), R. 6 - Re-fixation of pay - Recovery of excess pay - Challenge against - Petitioner and his immediate senior were initially employed as clerks in the Food and Civil Supplies Department - Petitioner and the senior were promoted to the post of Junior Assistant and subsequently to Senior Assistant - According to R.6, petitioner opted to fix his revised pay after obtaining a post of Junior Assistant while his immediate senior had opted to fix his revised pay after completion of two years of service as a Clerk - Held, petitioner had wrongly exercised the option of revised pay as he treated 'placement' as a 'promotion' while his immediate senior had correctly exercised the option - As per the office letter/instructions, a junior is not entitled to higher pay than his senior and the pay is subject to reduction in case it is higher than that of the senior - Recovery of previous incorrect pay fixed by the respondent department was held to be improper as the excess payment made to the petitioner was not his fault ,but an error committed by the department in re-fixing the pay - Order of re-fixation (reduction ) of salary was held to be valid . (Para 5)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia), S. 25 - Divorce - Cruelty by wife - Both parties were residing separately - There was no consummation of marriage between parties after 2002 - 22 years had elapsed - Relation between parties had become irretrievably broken and there was no scope of reconciliation - Marital relationship which had only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, did nothing but inflicted cruelty on both sides - Husband had made out a ground of cruelty - Order granting divorce in favour of husband was proper - Husband was a Teacher in a private school and provided tuition to students - He had share in joint ancestral property and he was ready to settle dispute by offering Rs. 10,00,000/- as permanent alimony to wife - Direction was issued to husband to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as permanent alimony to wife. (Para 22, 25, 27, 28, 36, 39, 42)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 9 - Restitution of conjugal rights - Dismissal of application - Fact of long separation of parties, denying to cohabit by wife with husband and filing criminal cases against husband and other in-laws had irretrievably broken relationship of wife and husband - There was no scope of its repair - Dismissal of application of wife for restitution of conjugal rights was proper. (Para 16, 17)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Government contract - Delay in payment of admitted dues - Petitioner had supplied materials pursuant to a work order issued by the District Election Officer for the Lok Sabha Elections, 2019 - Plea of want of funds was no justification for withholding payment of admitted dues - Respondent-authorities duly admitted the liability of Rs.9,17,290 but failed to make payment for over six years on the ground of non-availability of funds - Petitioner was entitled to the said amount together with interest. (Para 5, 6)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Proof of - Accused persons allegedly committed murders of deceased persons - The case was solely based on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of bodies from house of accused persons and alleged extrajudicial confessions - It was found that there were no eyewitnesses to the murders, and alleged confessions of accused persons were inadmissible under S.25 of the Evidence Act - Recovery of bodies could be reasonably explained by claim of accused that unknown persons had dumped bodies in their house, supported by evidence that other individuals seen with deceased prior to murders were not made accused - Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof and where two interpretations are possible, one favouring accused must prevail - Conviction was based on conjecture and surmise, and thus was set aside. (Para 12,13,14)

(A) Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (6 of 1978), S. 8 - Preventive detention - Challenge against - Detenue was detained as habitual bovine smuggler on basis of registration of four FIRs where he was already on bail and his involvement in Antisocial/Anti National activities - SSP in his dossier did not serve District Magistrate with full picture of facts with respect to detenu - All FIRs referred to in grounds of detention were those cases in which detenu was already bailed out - Offences under S. 188 of IPC r/w/ offence under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in which detenu was said to be involved were not relatable in any manner to maintenance of public order - Moreover grounds of detention were vague and ambiguous and did not refer to any date, month or year of activities, which was attributed to detenu - Detention in preventive custody on basis of such vague and ambiguous grounds could not be justified - Detention order was not proper. (Para 14, 15)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 386 - M. P. Excise Act (2 of 1915), S. 34(2) - Illegal possession of country made liquor - 2610 bulk liters country made liquor was seized from house of accused - Though witnesses turned hostile, Excise Sub-Inspector categorically stated about seizure of illegal liquor from possession of accused - Finding of trial Court regarding conviction was based on evidence adduced on record - Considering fact that accused had already deposited fine amount and he had served jail sentence of 451 days, which was more than prescribed minimum sentence and had no criminal antecedents, sentence of accused was reduced to period already undergone by him. (Para 9, 12, 14)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.11(b) - Rejection of plaint - Ad valorem Court Fee - Suit for declaration that sale deed was null and void - Plaintiff being executant of sale deed, plea of fraud was taken only to avoid payment of ad valorem court fee - Such plea was not sustainable - Plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem fee - Matter was remanded to trial court to adjudicate about market value of suit property and thereafter, to give opportunity to plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court fee. (Para 6, 7, 8, 10)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S.13B - Divorce by mutual consent - Appellant/husband and respondent/wife were married on 11.12.2017 and have been living separately since 04.02.2020 - They jointly filed a petition under S.13B for divorce by mutual consent on 16.04.2025 - First motion was recorded on 12.06.2025, and second motion was moved on 07.07.2025, which Family Court rejected as premature due to absence of application seeking waiver of statutory six-month cooling-off period - Cooling-off period under S.13B(2) is directory, not mandatory, and can be waived where reconciliation is impossible and prolonging process only adds to parties' agony - Family Court should have permitted parties to file a waiver application instead of dismissing suit - Accordingly, order dismissing suit was set aside, and suit was restored to its original stage for consideration of second motion in accordance with law. (Para 10,11,12,13)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.147 - Liability of insurer - Determination - Accident occurred due to head-on collision between Car and truck - Eye witness of accident deposed that both vehicles had collided head-on and that accident took place due to sole negligence on part of driver of Truck, who was driving in rash and negligent manner - However, evidence placed on record also indicated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Car - Since both vehicles were involved in head-on collision and evidence indicated contributory negligence, Tribunal erred in holding that accident took place due to sole negligence on part of truck driver - Thus, insurer of both vehicles were held liable for accident. (Para 15, 16, 27)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Compensation - Death claim - Deceased aged about 48 years and was self-employed - 25% added towards future prospects - Amount deducted towards personal expenses - Sum awarded towards loss of estate - Amount awarded towards filial consortium and funeral expenses - Claimants entitled to enhanced compensation. (Para 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3, S. 27 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 149, S. 307, S. 449, S. 148, S. 143, S. 144, S. 147 - Murder by forming unlawful assembly - Proof - Accused persons had allegedly by forming unlawful assembly with common object had assaulted informant party with swords and knives resulted in death of one and injuries to other - Death of deceased was homicidal in nature - Evidence of mother of deceased established that all accused persons had in furtherance of their common object had assaulted deceased - Her evidence was corroborated by injured eye-witnesses, medical and scientific evidence - Blood stained weapons were recovered at instance of accused persons - Witnesses had identified accused persons in Court as they had seen them as assailants during incident in street light as sufficient electricity was there at spot - Accused persons were members of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object had committed murder of deceased punishable under S. 302 of IPC and caused injuries to other person and thereby committed offence - Conviction was proper. (Para 14, 16, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 48, 49, 51, 64, 65, 70, 76, 77, 79, 81)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 307, S. 143, S. 144, S. 147, S. 148, S. 149, S. 449 - Murder - Testimony of witness - Reliability - Evidence of eye-witnesses criticised on ground that despite opportunity, they did not inform Police - Son of one eye-witness was died in alleged assault - When Police came at spot of incident, injured witness was not present at spot - Explanation given by I.O. that since injured had taken treatment at other place, his statement could not be recorded immediately - Other eye-witness though was present but nothing on record to show that immediately he was enquired by I.O. and after enquiry also he had not disclosed incident to I.O. - Merely because that witness had not responded in a particular manner, was not sufficient to discard evidence - Nothing on record to show that there was any other reason for witnesses to implicate accused falsely in alleged incident - On ground of belated recording of statements of witnesses, their evidence cannot be thrown away when delay was explained by I.O. - Testimonies of witnesses were reliable. (Para 45, 46)

(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 307, S. 147, S. 148, S. 149, S. 449 - Murder - Testimony of witnesses - Reliability - While appreciating testimonies of rustic witnesses and when number of intruders attack with deadly weapons then witness cannot be expected to give a very accurate and photogenic version as whole thing happened in a few minutes - Eye-witnesses and injured witness were rustic witnesses - Injured and deceased were attacked by several accused suddenly - Mother of deceased and eye-witness had witnessed incident when 10 to 12 persons were assaulting with deadly weapons and it was difficult for them to narrate act of each accused - Testimonies of witnesses cannot be discarded on ground that they had not attributed specific role to accused. (Para 47)

(D) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 161 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 27 - Recovery evidence - Challenge against - Ground of non-examination of independent witnesses - Evidence of I.O. proved that, as accused persons had shown their willingness to make a voluntary statement, he called two panchas and in presence of panchas, they made disclosure statement and led towards place where they concealed weapons and at their instance two sword and four knives were recovered from bushes - I.O. was cross-examined on that aspect but he denied contention that accused had not made any statement and no recovery was there at their instance - Prosecution had not examined panch witnesses - There was no requirement either under S. 27 of Evidence Act or under S. 161 of Cr.P.C. to obtain signature of independent witnesses on record in which statement of an accused is written - Recovery evidence was reliable. (Para 50, 54, 56)

(E) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 27 - Recovery evidence - Challenge against - On ground that, accused was handcuffed at the time of recovery - Apprehension of investigating agency that he may flee away or may attack them may be one of the reason to keep him in a handcuff position and possibility cannot be ruled out - When accused was handcuffed, he may not be free from fear of Police or duress of pressure but that itself cannot be a reason to discard recovery of weapon if it was otherwise found to be corroborated by other evidence - Handcuffing of a person by itself cannot be a reason to generalise hypothesis that such a discovery cannot be reliable. (Para 57)

(F) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 27 - Recovery evidence - Whether place of recovery was open - Determination - Recovery from open place was not admissible - Recovery evidence shows that, weapons were found in a concealed position and recovered from thorny bushes - It was not a place which was visible to all - Plea that place of recovery was open place was not sustainable - Recovery evidence was admissible. (Para 58)

(G) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 157 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 147, S. 148, S. 149 - Murder by forming unlawful assembly - Whether dispatch of FIR was delayed - Alleged incident had taken place on 31.10.2017 and during that night FIR was lodged - It was not a delayed FIR - No document was on record to show that when FIR was dispatched to Magistrate - There was no suggestion to I.O. that FIR was dispatched to Magistrate belatedly - However, a mere delay by itself cannot be a sole factor in rejecting prosecution's case arrived at after due investigation - Contention of delayed dispatching of FIR to Magistrate, was not sustainable. (Para 59, 60, 63)

(H) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 149 - Common object - Essential conditions for forming - Explained. (Para .)

(I) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 120B - Criminal conspiracy - Proof - Accused persons had allegedly by forming unlawful assembly with common object had assaulted informant parties with swords and knives resulted in death of one and injuries to other - There was no evidence to show that there was an agreement or meeting of minds - Offence under S. 120B of IPC was not proved - Conviction for offence of criminal conspiracy was set aside. (Para 78)

(J) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Proof - Reasonable doubt - Law does not require a fact that requires to be proved on absolute terms bereft of all doubts - For a fact to be considered to be proven, it must eliminate any reasonable doubt - Reasonable doubt does not mean any trivial, fanciful or imaginary doubt, but doubt based on reason and common sense growing out of evidence in case - Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract, speculation - Law cannot afford any favouring other than truth - Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to guilt of accused arising from evidence - A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or mere a possible doubt but a fare doubt based upon reason and common sense. (Para 79, 80)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Suspension from service - Lack of administrative supervision - Petitioner was placed under suspension, while he was working as Principal of Engineering College - He was under forced mandatory leave until further orders, in connection with accidental death of seven students - Charges against petitioner related to gross anomalies in engagement of guest/part-time faculties - Two departmental proceedings were pending against petitioner - At time of suspension, petitioner was no longer Director of Technical Education, rather he was working as Principal of Engineering College - Over and above, he was under forced mandatory leave - Whole exercise done by authorities suffers from vice of arbitrariness and thus was violative of Art.14 of Constitution - Petitioner had no occasion to have access of relevant documents of period to which charges of Departmental Proceeding relates to - There was no useful purpose would be served by continuing petitioner under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be threat to fair trial - Authorities were directed to reinstate petitioner. (Para 18, 18.1, 19)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Appointment - To post of Warrant Officer (Personal Assistant) - Rejection - Ground that petitioner being found unfit due to digital tremors - As there was a lack of clarity with regard to exact medical condition of petitioner, inasmuch as medical examinations were not conducted on basis of an opinion of a Neurologist as provided in Guidelines, it is therefore directed that Authorities shall facilitate Examination of petitioner at any convenient medical facility where examination shall be conducted as per clauses 6 (d) which provides that "Review Medical Board may obtain opinion of concerned specialist or super specialist of Govt. Medical College and Hospital in case of any doubt and therefore, in cases of rejection in review medical examination, clinical findings should be corroborated with confirmatory tests/investigations/opinion of specialists/super specialists of Govt. Hospitals/Medical Colleges/Govt. approved private medical centers, whichever and wherever applicable. (Para 7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Imposition of punishment - Challenge against - Ground that documents repeatedly asked for by delinquent employee for filing his reply to charge-sheet as also second show-cause notice were not provided to him amounting to serious lapse in departmental proceedings - From enquiry report it transpires that same did not deal with documents asked for by delinquent employee neither same were supplied to him nor did Conducting Officer states in his report as to how those documents were irrelevant for proceedings - In absence of documents being supplied to delinquent employee as also Conducting Officer not having dealt with it in his report as to why documents were not being supplied or as to why same were irrelevant, departmental proceedings stands vitiated by severe procedural irregularities - Order imposing punishment by Department and affirmed by Secretary, Home Department in appeal was not proper. (Para 18)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 - Compensation claim - Delay in lodging FIR - Effect of - Delay was due to medical treatment of injured - Explanation was found plausible and acceptable - Absence of independent eyewitness was not fatal where injured claimant himself was a competent witness - Tribunal was justified in applying principle of "Pay and Recover" - Insurer was first required to satisfy award and thereafter recover from owner. (Para 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S.5 - Filing of appeal - Condonation of delay - Delay of about 7 months 23 days in filing appeal - Delay, which had been occurred from passing of decree till defendant gathered knowledge, was not mentioned - However, that was not required because he was unaware that such decree had been passed - No mala fides or deliberate negligence was shown - Subordinate Court, after considering affidavit and materials, found cause sufficient and condoned delay - Jurisdictional error or illegality was not found - Delay was rightly condoned. (Para 4, 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Family pension - Claim by second wife - Petitioner was admittedly second wife of deceased government servant, who married him during lifetime of first wife - Even if member of ST community is deemed to be excluded from provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, then he would have to prove that in his Tribe there are certain tribal traditions, which are being followed and respected and therefore, Tribe would be governed by its own traditions - Nothing was proved or placed on record that any practice was continuing in Tribe which permits polygamy/bigamy for Tribe members - Petitioner was not entitled to family pension. (Para 7, 8)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Education - Admission to PG Medical Course - Publication of fresh advertisement allowing fresh registration and change in choices regarding allotment of PG Medical Seat - After publication of provisional seat allotment result - Challenge against - No material was placed before Court to establish that decision to extend choice filling date or revise final result was actuated with mala fide or was a colourable exercise of power - Suspicion howsoever strong could not take place of proof - Petitioner's allegation in that regard remain vague and unsubstantiated - There was no fault or breach of rules and regulations on part of authorities - Final seat allotment was in consonance with merit-cum-choice principle and did not call for interference. (Para 18, 21, 23)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Appointment - To post of Sub-Inspector of Police in OBC category - Rejection of candidature - Ground that candidate could not submit caste and creamy layer certificate of Collector as same was not issued but only submitted caste and creamy layer certificate issued by SDO - Candidate submitted his caste certificate showing him not to belong to creamy layer issued by District Magistrate only after 22.7.2010 - From contents of counter affidavit filed on behalf of Commission it transpired that candidate not having submitted certificate of his not belonging to creamy layer, his candidature could not be considered under reserved category - This statement made in counter affidavit filed by Commission was not controverted by candidate inspite of a copy of same were served on candidate - Order rejecting candidature for appointment to post of Sub-Inspector of Police in OBC category was proper. (Para 13)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S. 13 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 468, S. 471, S. 477-A - Misappropriation of amount of fine - Falsification of accounts - Accused working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector allegedly presented duplicate receipts of the fine collected and dishonestly misappropriated the amount of fine - Prosecution was able to prove that there was entrustment of money and no proper accounting of the same - Defence taken of mental disease which he was unable to prove - Fraudulent intention of the accused can be inferred from the circumstances and from the evidence adduced - Conviction was proper. (Para 30,31)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Regular pay-scale - Denial of benefit - Petitioner was selected for appointment on post of Assistant Teacher - At time of his joining he was short of 18 years of age - Respondents had not disputed that similarly situated persons were entitled to get benefit of regular pay-scale from date of their sending on training - Therefore, if petitioner had completed 18 years of age as on 16/7/1975, he would be entitled to get benefit - Petitioner was denied benefit of regular pay scale only because he had not completed 18 years of age - Further, fact that petitioner had been extended benefit of regular pay scale with effect from October' 1977 shows that reason assigned for denial was incorrect - Factum of having not completed 18 years of age was very well within knowledge of respondents - Apart from objection that petitioner had not completed 18 years of age, there was no other reason assigned by respondents for denying benefit of regular pay-scale to petitioner from 16/7/1975 - Admittedly, benefit had already been extended to everyone else - There was no impediment in making payment of admissible retiral dues to petitioner immediately - Order denying benefit was set aside. (Para 8, 9, 10, 11)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.11(b), (c) - Rejection of plaint - Defendant contended that plaint revealed incorrect valuation and court fee deficiency - Valuation of suit depends upon nature of relief and value of subject matter and cannot be determined at threshold merely by looking at plaint - Plaintiff had valued relief of declaration at ?5,000/-, and issue required evidence - Plaintiff was dominus litis and had to assess suit according to just and reasonable valuation - Defendant will have ample opportunity to lead evidence in respect of less valuation of suit at proper stage - Plaint was not rejected. (Para 4, 5, 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226, Art. 300A - Terminal benefits - Belated payment - Petitioner had superannuated from service on 30.06.2022 and Commissioner of Municipality had not settled any money - Petitioner was found to be entitled for further sum apart from amount already paid to him - Terminal benefits is not bounty and is property protected under Art. 300A - Respondents had pleaded liabilities exceeding 12 crores which had severely impacted its ability to disburse terminal benefit - Person cannot be deprived of this pension without authority of law - Held, petitioner was unlawfully and illegally denied his terminal benefits beyond statutory period - Direction was issued to respondents not to draw their salary till disbursal of amount to all employees of Municipality whose terminal benefits were not settled after retirement . (Para 11, 12)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 11 - Appointment of arbitrator - Application for - Disputes between parties for purchase of salvage material - Arbitration agreement was existing between parties - S. 34 proceedings were concluded and arbitral award was set aside on ground that claims were barred by limitation - Applicant had filed interim application for correction of award and same was also rejected by Court with observation that applicant would have to resort to de novo arbitration in respect of all issues, since it had no power to modify award - Applicant thereafter filed S. 11 application seeking appointment of arbitrator in the second round to adjudicate the same disputes that have arisen between the parties under said Agreement - Respondent's issue of financial burden caused by second round of arbitration was indeed a legitimate concern - However, same can be agitated by respondent before arbitrator, who shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders for payments of fees and costs of arbitration - Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate disputes. (Para 6, 8, 9)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34, S. 38 - Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession - Ownership of property - Brother of defendant admitted entering into agreement with original owner, but he never pursued any legal remedy or filed a suit for specific performance against original owner or his son - No legal steps were taken by defendants to enforce agreement and therefore, no ownership rights can be claimed based on it - Plaintiff submitted a valid sale-deed executed by wife of original owner proving lawful transfer of ownership - Sale-deed in favour of plaintiff was executed by competent person, wife of original owner and no substantial challenge to its validity was presented - Also, title and right to possession of plaintiff was established - Claim of defendants was unsupported by any enforceable right or legal action - Mere possession of property since 1997, as claimed by defendants, did not equate to ownership - Since defendants never filed a suit for performance of 1997 agreement, their possession was deemed permissive and did not grant any title to property - Decree of suit in favour of plaintiff was proper. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20)

(A) Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), S.3 - LPG distributorship - Rejection of candidature - Petitioner applied for LPG distributorship under "Open (W)" category at Raepur Buzurg, District Samastipur, pursuant to advertisement issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) - She was declared successful in draw of lots - For showroom premises, she submitted a lease deed executed in favour of her husband, which contained a clause providing that lease would automatically stand cancelled in case LPG distributorship was not allotted - Lease deed being conditional and not in her or her family unit's name did not satisfy eligibility criteria as prescribed under Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors - Rejection of candidature was proper. (Para 22, 23)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 13(1)(ia),(ib) - Divorce - Cruelty and desertion - Husband alleged that wife left his company without any reason - Evidence on record and cross-examination of husband itself showed that husband was not intended to do any work, he did not know when his child was born or age of the child - His parents had made a police complaint against him and had prevented him from coming into their house - Husband admitted that he was not interested to lead marital life with her - It was husband who had deserted the wife - Cruelty as alleged by the husband was not proved against the wife - Divorce was not granted. (Para 13,14)

(A) Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules (1994), R. 21(2) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (67 of 1957), S. 15 - Renewal of quarry lease - Rejection - Lease was granted to original lessee on 30.12.1998 for five years - Said period of lease expired on 29.12.2003 and therefore was renewed for a further term of 10 years from 30.12.2003 pursuant to order passed by Revisional Authority - If plea of petitioner that first day of lease, i.e. 30.12.2003, was required to be excluded, was accepted; there would be a gap of one day between expiry of earlier lease and its renewal - It was erroneous to suggest that term of lease would expire on 30.12.2013 as that would imply, term of lease was ten years and one day - Since term of lease expired on 29.12.2013, period of 90 days within which application for renewal of lease was required to be made, would necessarily have to be reckoned from midnight on 29.12.2013 - Petitioner had not made application within period as stipulated under R.21(2) of 1994 Rules - But, petitioner was entitled to make a delayed application on payment of penalty - Last date on which petitioner could make application with penalty was 29.12.2013 - Since same was a holiday, petitioner made application for renewal on day following, i.e., on 30.12.2013 along with amount of penalty - Order rejecting application for renewal of lease on ground that same was made after expiry of period was set aside - Matter was remanded to Revisional Authority to consider it afresh. (Para 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21)

(A) A. P. Municipalities Act (6 of 1965), S.46 - Procedure for no-confidence motion - Issuance of Form-II notice - Challenge against - District Collector convened meeting on 15.05.2025 for considering motion of no confidence against petitioner/Chairperson of Municipal Council - Collector received Form-I on 02.04.2025, issued Form-II on 29.04.2025, and held the meeting on 15.05.2025 i.e. beyond the statutory limit of 30 days - Both Collector and Commissioner admitted that copy of proposed motion was not annexed to Form-II - Mandatory procedure prescribed under Ss. 46(1), (2), and (4) was not complied with - Impugned notice and impugned proceedings such as subsequent no-confidence meeting were set aside for violation of Ss.46(1) and (2) of A.P. Municipalities Act of 1965. (Para 25, 26, 27)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Dishonour of cheque - Accused sought quashing of summoning orders on the ground that he had resigned as Director of the accused company prior to the presentation of the cheque and was not responsible for the conduct of its business at the relevant time - Admittedly, accused was Director at the time of issuance of the disputed post-dated cheques and necessary averments as to his responsibility for day-to-day affairs were made in the complaint - Mere plea of resignation without unimpeachable evidence cannot be a ground for quashing at the pre-trial stage - Question whether petitioner had ceased to be a Director and his actual role in the company is a matter for trial - High Court cannot embark upon a roving inquiry into disputed facts or weigh defense evidence at the summoning stage - No ground made out for quashing of summoning order. (Para 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Compensation - Contributory negligence - 50% of the compensation was deducted for contributory negligence of deceased - Chargesheet submitted against the driver of offending vehicle reflected that driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in driving the dumper - Further plea by the driver of the offending vehicle that claimants had withdrawn the amount awarded under Workmen's Compensation Act but same was not proved - Claimants were paid only Rs. 10,000/- under conventional heads which should be Rs.70,000/- and 10% further at the interval of 3 years each - Hence, claimants were entitled to the whole amount of compensation awarded of Rs. 17,15,752/-. (Para 6,7,10,12,14)

(A) Companies Act (1 of 1956), S. 536(2) - Auction sale - Stay of proceedings - Appellant was asserting title over 30.655 acres in survey numbers on basis of sale deeds executed by respective land owners - After commencement of winding up of company any disposition of property of company shall be void unless Court otherwise orders - Appellant was relying upon sale deeds executed in 2019 and sale deed in favour of immediate predecessor was also executed in 2019 - There was also no other antecedent parent document in favour of predecessor-in-title - Also, on application of S.536(2) of Companies Act, 1956, sale deed in favour of appellant was made after date of order of winding up and hence sale transaction was void - Order of Single Judge, dismissing application for stay of proceedings of auction sale by declaring sale deeds in favour of respective applicants were void and that mutation of revenue records on such basis was also void, was proper. (Para 13, 14)

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S.6 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.363, S.376D, S.341, S.323 - Kidnapping and gang rape - Appreciation of evidence - Allegation that accused persons forcibly made 17 yrs old prosecutrix sit in the car, took her to a secluded place around petrol pump and raped her - Prosecutrix's age was not proved to be below 18 yrs - Medical report was negative for recent intercourse or injuries - No independent witness or recovery of incriminating material from alleged place of occurrence - Place of incident was not established - Mobile call records showed prior contact between prosecutrix and accused - Circumstances suggesting voluntary association rather than forcible act - Acquittal was proper. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20)

(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (2 of 2016), S.15 - Child in conflict with law - Trial as adult - Challenge against preliminary assessment - Revision challenged orders of Juvenile Justice Board and Children's Court directing that a 17-year-old accused be tried as an adult for heinous offences, including murder - Juvenile Justice Board had not considered report of psychologist - Appellate court considered the same and recorded finding that revisionist was not able to understand consequences of the act committed by him and was immature - Said report did not mention the tests to which revisionist was subjected, his EQ or IQ - Finding recorded by Board regarding criminal antecedents of revisionist could not have been sole ground for declaring him adult for the purposes of trial - Orders passed by J.J. Board and Children's Court were not in accordance with law - Preliminary assessment of revisionist was required to be made afresh by J.J. Board, as contemplated under section 15(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015 - Said assessment was to be made as per guidelines issued by Court (Para 7,8,9,21,28-33,35,36,37)

(B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (2 of 2016), S.15 - Heinous offences - Trial for - Preliminary assessment of juvenile - Guidelines were issued for making preliminary assessment of a child under Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

(A) J. & K. Land Revenue Act (12 of 1996 Smvt.), S. 31 - Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (35 of 1968), S. 7 - Acquisition of land - Requisition of - Dispute was regarding land under ownership of petitioners - As per petitioners, said portion of land was taken over by Army Authorities only in 1988 whereas, stand of Authorities was that said portion of land being State land was occupied by them in 1962 itself at time of requisition of private land - Petitioners based their claim on entries in revenue record i.e., khasra girdawari and mutations attested in their favour which were intact - Authorities based their claim on handing over and taking over document - Entries made in khasra girdawari with respect to land carried a presumption of correctness and as per these entries said land came in possession of army authorities only in 1988 - Presumption attached to correctness of these entries was not rebutted by document of handing over and taking over of possession - Respondents failed to challenge entries in revenue record or to get issue determined in their favour from a competent authority but they failed to do so - Acquisition proceedings in respect of said land could not have been initiated because occupation of army authorities on said portion of land was not pursuant to any requisition but same was unauthorised in nature, as no compensation on account of use and occupation of same was being paid to allottees of said portion of land - Petitioners cannot be denied their right to property - Proceedings initiated for acquisition of land of petitioner cannot be taken to their logical conclusion - Petitioners were at liberty to make a representation with respondents for acquisition of their land or in alternative for release of land in their favour. (Para 26, 27, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41)

(A) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S.55 - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.22 - Suit for specific performance - Grant of decree - Request for a possession warrant - Rejection on ground that decree did not expressly grant possession - Petitioner had already obtained a registered sale deed through Court Commissioner but had been denied possession despite earlier High Court directions - When defendant is in exclusive possession, a decree for specific performance inherently includes right to possession under S.55(1)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act - Executing Court had therefore erred in refusing to issue a possession warrant. (Para 10-15)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 376 - Rape - Appreciation of evidence - Accused had allegedly committed rape on prosecutrix at a gunpoint - Both accused and family of prosecutrix were well known to each other and accused frequently used to visit to her house - Relation developed between accused and prosecutrix was not actually rape; rather a consensual physical relation by which family members were well aware and due to this, FIR was lodged after a delay of nine days and no reasonable explanation was made - Witnesses had denied allegation of rape and deposed that due to dirty village politics, name of accused was falsely implicated - Defence witness suggested that family of prosecutrix had taken loan from accused and upon pressure to refund the same had filed false case against accused - Medical report and doctor had not found any sign of rape on prosecutrix - No spermatozoa was seen - Non-examination of semen of accused was doubtful - If it was accepted that physical relation developed between prosecutrix and accused, then it was only a consensual sex - Charges of rape was not proved - Conviction was set aside. (Para 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38)

(A) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (2014), R. 19 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Appointment - Prayer for - Petitioners placed in waiting list claiming relief of appointment to post of Nayab Tahsildar, following examination conducted by CGPSC vide advertisement published in 2016 - Thereafter vide new advertisement, new list of selected candidate was published in 2017 - As per R. 19 of Rules, 2014, after publication of new list of selection, the earlier wait list would lapse - Therefore, no arbitrariness or discrimination was made against petitioners in respect of selection process - Petitioners were not entitled to appointment. (Para 7)

(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (2 of 2016), S. 12 - Bail - Rejection of - Offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Juvenile was aged about 17 years and 11 months at time of alleged occurrence and he was in custody - Juvenile was represented by his mother and mother was ready to give undertaking that she would take care of juvenile and he would not repeat offence and he would not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger - In absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that release of juvenile would defeat ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining bail to juvenile - Victim and informant had not supported case - Order rejecting bail was set aside. (Para 5, 9, 10)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Transfer order - Challenge against - Appellant, posted as Commandant 67 BN CRPF, Shillong, was posted to RTC, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - In transfer guidelines, it was stated that, though normal tenure of officers under policy would be 3 years, same was subjected to provision found at para 5(b), wherein it was stipulated, inter alia, that in view of administrative requirements, any officer may be posted to any Unit or office at any point of time - Plea that order of transfer was bad in law, same being issued without waiting for appellant to complete his present tenure, was untenable - Transfer was issued on grounds of administrative reasons, but in course of proceedings before Court, was qualified to be because of inter-personal conflict he had with his Officer, resulting in initiation of preliminary enquiry - Other Officer was also transferred out, though appellant would maintain that same was effectuated due to expiry of his tenure, but no such indication was found in order of transfer - Posting to Jodhpur, Rajasthan was not harsh posting and no malafide in such action was seen - Fact that he was transferred on account of administrative reasons, apparently for authorities to conduct preliminary enquiry was also based on sound logic, since a fair enquiry may not be possible to be conducted in his presence, more so, as he was head of Unit or Battalion - Appellant failed to produce authorities which said that Govt. employee or Officer cannot be transfer out in the midst of preliminary enquiry involving him - Order of transfer was proper. (Para 23, 24, 25)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168, S. 149(2)(a)(ii) - Compensation - Liability of insurer - Forged licence - Driving licence of driver of offending vehicle was duly placed on record - To support its plea that although licence was renewed from time to time, original licence had never been issued in name of driver of offending vehicle, insurer examined clerk of DTO - However, insurer itself admitted that work relating to issuance and renewal of driving licences had been computerized with effect from 2012 - Mere absence of manual record cannot, by itself, lead to inference that licence in question was forged or fabricated - Burden of proving willful breach u/S. 149(2)(a)(ii) lies squarely upon insurer which insurer miserably failed - Record was bereft of any material to indicate that owner had knowledge of any defect or infirmity in driving licence of driver of offending vehicle or that he had deliberately permitted him to drive despite being conscious of such irregularity - No element of willful breach can be fastened upon insured - Finding recorded by Tribunal, holding driver, owner, and insurer jointly and severally liable to satisfy award, with insurer being bound to indemnify insured was based on correct appreciation of evidence and sound application of settled law - No interference was warranted. (Para 13, 14, 21, 22)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Appointment - Interim restraint on selection process - State filed interlocutory applications seeking modification of Court's earlier order - Modification sought did not prejudice interest of petitioners as State had undertaken not to fill up 200 posts till final decision - Earlier restraint order was to protect petitioners' interests; not to indefinitely stall the administrative recruitment process - Selection process was concluded - State was permitted to publish select list and make appointments against the advertised posts - However, 200 Constable posts out of the total advertised vacancies would remain unfulfilled until final adjudication . (Para 9, 10)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528 - Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Exhibition of document - Complaint was filed in 2017 and application to get documents exhibited was filed in 2024 - Deposition of accused showed that in 2016 his cheque book was missing for which he made a written complaint to police station - As per complainant it was starting point of knowledge that cheque book of accused was missing and he made application under RTI for disclosure of information about making such complaint by accused to police and in compliance thereof, information was disclosed in 2024 that no such complaint was made - After getting information, immediately application was filed by complainant before trial court along with document and prayed for marking of said document exhibited in favour of complainant - Document sought to be exhibited in evidence came in existence only after recording evidence of accused on 06.07.2024 and thereafter when information was supplied to complainant, immediately thereafter he availed his remedy to file relevant application before trial court, which cannot be said to be belated - Accused was having ample opportunity to cross examine witnesses who would mark document exhibited - Order of trial court rejected application on ground that it was filed at fag end of trial was set aside - Complainant was permitted to get documents exhibited. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 34 - Setting aside of arbitral award - Prayer for - Respondent transferred certain amount to petitioner, however, petitioner did not supply material of whole amount which was evident from invoice and ledger entry - Arbitrator also took into consideration request of claimant to petitioner for supply of materials or to return back balance amount - Under such circumstances, Arbitrator came to conclusion that amount was retained by petitioner and goods were not supplied and therefore awarded claim which was proper - Further, petitioner was not vigilant and did not choose to effectively defend and therefore cannot turn around and plead that Arbitrator did not provide opportunity to defend - With respect to sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- that was awarded towards business loss, arbitrator had not assigned any reason - Therefore, it suffered from patent illegality, accordingly same was set aside - Transaction between parties was commercial transaction and therefore interest awarded @ 18% p.a., did not warrant interference. (Para 15, 17, 18, 19)

(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S.3(1)(xi) - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.354 - Outraging modesty of woman and offence under SC/ST Act - Sentence - Accused did not want to challenge conviction of under S.354 of IPC and S.3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but had prayed for reduction of jail sentence - Parties had entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute, which had been duly verified - Considering nature of accusation, compromise between parties; fact that complainant(s)/victim had no objection to compounding offence, as also period of incarceration already undergone by accused and also fact that accused was facing agony for last 12 years as incident had took place in 2013, ends of justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment was reduced to period already undergone by him. (Para 14, 15, 16)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Award of compensation - Claimants failed to discharge burden of proving that death was caused by injuries suffered in accident - Deceased suffered simple injuries in his hand, neck and legs - However, he had not suffered any permanent disability, as no document was produced to prove same - Therefore, calculation of income, adding of future prospects and use of multiplier method was not warranted - Amount awarded under head of loss of earning due to disability was manifestly low considering fact that he was hospitalized for continuous period of 20 days - Amounts awarded under conventional heads such as pain and sufferings, special diet, transportation charges, etc., were on lower side and fail to reflect severity of grievous injuries suffered - Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards loss of earning due to disability - Rs. 2,50,000/- awarded towards medical expenses - Rs. 50,000/- awarded towards future treatment - Rs. 70,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering - Rs. 30,000/- each awarded towards transportation charges, attendant charge and special diet - Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities - Award was modified accordingly. (Para 9, 10, 13)

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Application for quashing of summoning order - Complaint was filed before expiry of 15 days of service of notice - Complaint could not be treated as Complaint in eyes of law - Summoning order and entire proceedings under S.138 of the NI Act, 1881, against applicant were quashed. (Para 8)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 21 - Protection of life - Petitioners were living in live-in-relationship - Even in case petitioners were in "Live-in Relationship", protection qua life and liberty of petitioners being sacrosanct stands at highest pedestal - Thus, they were entitled to be granted protection of life and liberty - Superintendent of Police was directed to look into representation of petitioners and if any threat perception was found, to take appropriate action in accordance with law. (Para 8)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 168 - Compensation - Death claim - Considering salary certificate of deceased, his monthly income assessed as Rs. 10,000/- was proper - Addition of 40% made towards future prospects instead of 50% as awarded by Tribunal - Deduction of 1/4th made towards personal expenditure - Multiplier of 16 applied - Rs.18,150/- awarded towards loss of estate - Rs.25,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses - Rs. 48,400/- to each claimant was awarded towards consortium - Award was modified accordingly. (Para 10, 11, 12)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 100 - Suit for declaration - That decree obtained by defendant was illegal, void and inoperative - Core question whether plaintiff was validly adopted was held in favour of him relying on documentary evidence contemporaneous to period long before any dispute arose - Ancestral nature of property was not disputed before first appellate court, hence could not be raised at second appellate stage - Previous suit on similar cause of action was dismissed in default and fresh suit was filed without impleading adopted son of original owner and decree was obtained - Decree obtained by fraud is nullity in law and such fraud vitiates even most solemn proceedings - Concealment of earlier suit and deliberate exclusion of necessary party clearly constitutes fraud upon Court and abuse of process of law - Decree of suit in favour of plaintiff was proper. (Para 11, 15, 16)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226, Art.21-A - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (2 of 2016), S.24 - Student indiscipline - Expulsion of student - On ground of gross misconduct - Son of petitioner and 2 other created page on social media using name of School and posted offensive memes of teachers - Student admitted his misconduct and apologised - Petitioner approached State Child Right Commission which directed School not to terminate student and to provide counselling but School did not comply with same - Recommendation of Commission was not binding on School, hence School was not obliged to follow - Students made derogatory, communal and abusive memes of teacher, misusing School name and logo - TC contained no bad remarks showing no intent to harm future prospects - Student had history of misconduct and School has acted to maintain discipline, not to punish - Conduct of student was serious indiscipline, not innocent mischief - Student was mentally mature enough to understand his action - Apologies were conditional, not genuine - School is ready to hand over TC, therefore student can seek admission elsewhere and his educational future was not jeopardised - Order of expulsion was proper. (Para 15 to 19)

(A) Waqf Act (43 of 1995), S.83, S.85 - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7 R.11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Dismissal of application - Suit permanent injunction restraining defendant from disturbing his possession of property and declaration confirming his tenancy rights - Defendant stated that suit property was waqf property belonging to Trust, hence u/Ss.83,85 only waqf tribunal has jurisdiction therefore suit was barred by law - Property in dispute was admittedly waqf property - Dispute concerns tenant-landlord rights relating to waqf property - As per S.83(1) Tribunal determines disputes concerning waqf property, including eviction and rights/obligation of lessor and lessee - S.85 expressly bars jurisdiction of civil courts over such matters - Suit was barred by law - Dismissal of application was not proper. (Para 8,9,11,12)

(A) M. P. Accommodation Control Act (41 of 1961), S. 12(1)(c) - Eviction - Challenge against - Defendant had not produced any documentary evidence of ownership of disputed house - Documentary and oral evidence would show that house was registered in plaintiff's name since 1992 after partition - Defendant continues to occupy it as a tenant at Rs.250/- p.m. - He had stopped paying rent from January 2010 - Plaintiff had sent a notice to defendant demanding outstanding rent and require vacant possession - Defendant had failed to pay rent or vacate house - Plaintiff, landlord had required disputed house to open a welding shop for himself and his son and he had no other suitable place for business - He had established a bona fide need for disputed premises for his own and his sons' business purposes - Record proved that defendant was plaintiff's tenant, failed to pay rent despite valid notice and denied ownership - Order granting eviction and recovery of outstanding rent in favour of plaintiff was proper. (Para 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528 - Quashing of proceedings - Prayer for - Offence u/S. 289 of Penal Code was registered against accused - Parties had compromised matter - Compromise was voluntary in its nature entered into by complainant - Court observed that putting quietus to proceedings would bring peace and tranquility amongst parties and will accordingly further cause of substantial justice - Offences alleged were primarily of private nature - Consequently, proceedings were quashed. (Para 8)

(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949), S. 13(3)(a)(ii) - Eviction - Bona fide need - Respondent/landlord was owner of shop and she being widow required same for her bona fide necessity of opening business of sale of ladies garments, handbags etc. - Respondent had every right to decide which property was to be sold and just because it was in possession of petitioner/tenant, there was no bar of sale of said premises - It was landlord who was to decide which property was to be sold and which property was to be kept for personal necessity - Sale of other shops did not falsify fact of bona fide necessity of respondent for doing her own business - There was nothing on record to show that respondent was holding any other suitable residential building in urban area that can fulfil her bona fide need - Order directing petitioner/tenant to vacate demised premises within a period of three months was proper. (Para 9, 10, 20)

(A) Arms Act (54 of 1959), S.27 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.307, S.379, S.504, S.149 - Attempt to murder - Circumstantial evidence - Benefit of doubt - Allegations that accused along with co-accused persons armed with rifles, pistol, lathis etc. abused victim, picked up bundles of harvested wheat and opened fire due to which victim sustained injury - Testimonies of prosecution witnesses were not only inconsistent but mutually contradictory on point of boundary and identification of alleged place of incident - Prosecution was unable to prove place of occurrence - No cartridge or firearm was recovered from alleged place of occurrence - Investigating Officer did not seize any bullet, empty cartridge or weapon of offence, nor any forensic or ballistic examination was conducted - Medical evidence showed that injuries sustained by victim were simple in nature and act was not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death - Chain of circumstances was completed to prove guilt of accused - Accused persons were entitled to benefit of doubt - Hence, order of acquittal was proper. (Para 13,15,16,18,23)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 - Suit for specific performance - Validity of agreement - Sale agreement was executed between parties in presence of witnesses and properly notarised - Agreement recorded that entire amount was received in instalments prior to its execution - Omission of precise dates of payment of sale consideration raised some doubt but did not negate probative value of signatures of vendor on agreement or undisputed possession of Bhoo Adhikar Rin Pustika by vendee - Testimony of Handwriting Expert established that sale agreement had genuine signature of vendor thereby proving that agreement was duly executed by him - Expert opinion of Handwriting Expert read with testimonies of witnesses of vendee established reliable chain of evidence affirming authenticity of signature on agreement - Vendee discharged his burden of proof by producing sale agreement, supported by testimony of witnesses and expert opinion -Testimony of vendor was inconsistent - Plea of vendor that sale agreement was executed through fraud was not substantiated by any document and in absence of same mere bald averments cannot be considered - Finding of First Appellate Court that agreement to sell was duly executed by vendor and constituted a valid and certified contract for sale of suit land in favour of vendee was justified. (Para 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S. 5 - Condonation of delay - Delay of 708 days in filing appeal - Appellant was aware of temporary injunction order and participated in subsequent proceedings - Despite her medical ailments, she engaged counsel and pursued other remedies, indicating that delay in filing the appeal was not entirely unavoidable - Appellant made no genuine attempt to challenge temporary injunction order within a reasonable time, and explanation for 708 day delay lacked credibility - Appellant had failed to establish cogent and sufficient reasons to condone such an inordinate delay, therefore, delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned - Delay was not condoned. (Para 22, 26)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Notice inviting tender - Terms and conditions - Notice inviting tender contained Cl.34 stating that 'Offered CDSs should be less than 15 years as on date of submission of the bid' - There was no reason as to why CSDs which were less than 15 years of age were only considered to be eligible - Respondents by inserting Cl. 34 which fixed an age bar of 15 years for CSDs had narrowed scope of participation of persons who could have otherwise participated and have thus rendered playing field uneven - Insertion of said clause fixing an age bar of 15 years for CSDs prima facie lacked reasonable basis was ground enough to infer that petitioner was not given a fair consideration - Only right that petitioner had was one of fair consideration inasmuch as such right was prima facie infringed - There was prima facie satisfaction that there was indeed involvement of public interest and that hasty conduct of tender process seen in light of insertion of tender condition as regards age of CDS made same unreasonable - Cl.34 of NIT was unreasonable and as such, same should not be pressed for purpose of assessing bids of bidders participating in tender process. (Para 21, 22, 23, 26, 28)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.483 - Bail - Offence under Ss.318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 249(3), 61(B), 338 and 3(5) of BNS, S.3 of Passport Act and S.14 of Foreign Subject Act - Accused was prosecuted solely on basis of his memorandum statement - He had no previous criminal antecedents - Charge sheet had been filed - He was in jail since 24.05.2025 - Conclusion of trial was likely to take some time - Bail was granted. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528 - Quashing of proceedings - Compromise between parties - Offences alleged against accused punishable u/Ss. 323, 325, 341, 147, 148, 149 of Penal Code - Finally parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which was apparent from Compromise Deed - When parties had entered into compromise, then continuation of proceedings would be merely abuse of process of Court - By allowing and accepting prayer of petitioners by quashing FIR would be securing ends of justice, which is primarily object of legislature enacting u/S. 528 of B.N.S.S. - FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed. (Para 9)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 483 - Bail - Prayer for - Victim had given no objection for grant of bail to accued - However, bail on compromise shall not amount to the acceptance of compromise by the prosecution or the Court - Considering compromise, penal provisions invoked vis- -vis pre-trial custody, coupled with prima facie analysis of nature of allegations, and other factors peculiar to case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at stage - Bail was granted subject to conditions. (Para 10, 11)

(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002), S. 7 - Stay of proceedings - Imposition of condition - Petitioners had obtained a loan from respondent and had not repaid same - DRT passed order and a condition was imposed on petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- Imposing of condition for staying proceedings was not an illegal order - Petitioners instead of filing writ petition, should have approached DRT for extension of time and persuaded DRT to extend same - Since time given to petitioners to deposit amount would expire one week time was granted to petitioners to approach DRT for extension of time. (Para 5, 6)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Claim petition - Dismissal of - Legality - Complaint was filed by two wheeler rider - He specifically attributed rash and negligent driving on part of lorry driver - During police investigation, it was found that version given by complainant was credible - Since lorry could not be traced, they had closed complaint as "not traceable" - Sub Inspector from Traffic investigation deposed that as per FIR and investigation, accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of lorry driver - However, in their claim petition, claimants put forth contradictory version alleging that two wheeler rider was at fault - To substantiate contrary claim, one witness was examined, but his presence at spot was not reflected either in FIR or in accident register maintained by hospital - Claimants conveniently failed to examine rider of two wheeler or his relative who were most competent witnesses to speak about accident and further incident - Documentary evidence indicated that accident was caused by lorry driver, however, its owner and insurer had not been impleaded as respondents - Dismissal of claim petition was proper. (Para 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528 - Quashing of proceedings - On basis of compromise between parties - Where complainant is public servant - Explained.

(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528 - Quashing of proceedings - Sought on basis of compromise between parties - Accused persons allegedly stopped complainants from entering into office and caused disturbance in discharging their official duties - From factual milieu of case, it cannot be said that offence alleged to have been committed was in nature of private dispute between parties or dispute(s) between accused side and complainant/victim(s) partake colour of individual dispute - Accused persons alleged to have committed offence(s) against government official(s) during discharge of their official duty - Complainants had chosen to settle criminal case, pertaining to discharge of their official duty, without permission of concerned administrative competent authority - Therefore, proceedings was not liable to be quashed. (Para 14)

(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (2 of 2016), S. 12 - Bail - Rejection of - Offence of sexual assault - Juvenile was aged about 17 years at time of alleged occurrence and he was in custody - Victim had herself stated in her statement that she herself went with juvenile and entered into marriage with at a temple and again there was marriage in presence of informant - Juvenile was represented by his father and father was ready to give undertaking that he would take care of juvenile and he would not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger - In absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that release of juvenile would defeat ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining bail to juvenile - Order rejecting bail was set aside. (Para 5, 9, 10)

(A) Kerala Education Rules (1959), Chap.XXXII, R.4, Chap.XXXII, R.6 - Kerala Education Act (6 of 1959), S. 36 - Promotion - Post of Principal - Claim for - Facts produced showing that respondent was qualified to be appointed to post of Principal Higher Secondary School as on 01.06.2017 - Co-respondent was qualified for said post only on 04.01.2018 - As on date of order allotting post of Principal to Higher Secondary School, there were no qualified persons to be appointed to that post and claim for appointment to that post was raised by respondent only on 26.03.2019 - As per R.6, respondent had to prove that he had an equivalent qualification as that approved by any of Universities in Kerala, with not less than 50% marks - Respondent did not produce qualifying certificate, i.e., equivalency certificate before Manager at any point of time other than eligibility certificate - Service book and seniority list relied by respondent to contend that as on 01.06.2017, he ought to be selected by appellant-Manager to post of Principal, since no other qualified candidates were there at that point of time, was untenable - Since, as on date of raising claim by respondent and consideration by manager by relying on 2:1 ratio prescribed in R.4, it was co-respondent who was to be appointed to post of Principal - Order of Single Judge setting aside order rejecting claim of respondent was set aside. (Para 17, 18, 19, 21, 22)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 38 - Mandatory injunction - Entitlement - Temple property - Plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing defendants to remove compound wall raised on west, east and northern sides of suit property and also delivery of possession of suit property - To prove title of plaintiff, no documentary evidence was filed by plaintiff except relying on Revenue records issued by Revenue Department and same did not confer any title in respect of any immovable property - Plaintiff did not choose to file any document of title to prove that suit property was ancestral property of plaintiff - Also, plaintiff admitted temple was constructed in suit property and temple was founded by his forefathers - Material on record showed that accounts were maintained by temple since 1947 onwards and there was documentary evidence to show that public at large made contributions and donations for development of temple and compound wall was constructed and temple was also developed by spending hundi collection amounts as well as contributions made by devotee - Plaintiff was not entitled for mandatory injunction to remove compound wall and also delivery of possession as sought - Dismissal of suit was proper. (Para 17, 20, 21, 22)

(A) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.29(2) - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.22 R.4 - Abatement of appeal - On ground of delay of 382 days in filling death certificate - Challenge against - Suit for tenancy - Non-payment of arrears of rents - During appeal defendant died and applicant through power of attorney was managing case - Applicant stated that there was delay in obtaining death certificate of defendant - Respondent stated that delay was not properly explained and applicant knew about death of defendant and she was not statutory tenant u/S.5(11) therefore right to sue did not survive - Applicant had knowledge of death and waiting for death certificate was not sufficient reason - No sufficient cause to shown to condoned delay of 382 days - Order of abatement of appeal was proper. (Para 13-19)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 483 - Bail - Prayer for - There was sufficient prima facie evidence connecting accused with alleged crime - However, pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing - As per custody certificate total custody of accused was 03 months and 24 days - Bail was granted subject to conditions. (Para 8, 9, 11)

(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.23 - Quantum of compensation - Challenge against - On ground that Reference Court had not adjudicated evidence placed on record and no cogent reasons had been given for rejecting claim - On perusal of impugned order revealed that Reference Court there was no adjudication of said evidence while rejecting claims of claimants - It is duty of Reference Court to evaluate evidence objectively and dispassionately to reach finding on just and appropriate compensation - As claimants stated that no written arguments could be placed on record and no oral arguments were also made in the matter impugned judgment and decree passed by reference court was set aside - Matters were remanded to Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity of leading evidence and hearing to claimants. (Para 5, 7)

(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.18 - Reference - Dismissed for default - Claimants remained absent and failed to adduce evidence to prove his claim - Claimants being aggrieved by award of compensation were required to be given a chance to substantiate their claim of more compensation in reference proceedings - Judgment rejecting claim of claimants was set aside - Matter was remanded to Reference Court. (Para 6)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.125 - Maintenance - Quantum - Divorce on ground of desertion - Effect - Wife was alleged to have been subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry - She was residing at parental home with her minor son - Husband contended that marriage had been dissolved by decree of divorce and that wife deserted him without sufficient cause - Decree of divorce does not by itself bar claim of maintenance, if wife establishes that she was compelled to live separately due to cruelty or neglect - Family Court rightly awarded Rs.3,000/- p.m. to wife and Rs.2,000/- p.m. to minor son considering social status and earning capacity of husband. (Para 7, 8)

(A) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 54 - Agreement to Sell - Whether any right in property created in favour of Company in Liquidation - Appellant Company (CSL) entered into Agreement to Sell (ATS) with respondent Company for transfer of shares and leasehold property - Appellant Company failed to adhere to payment schedule of 12 months thereby committing breach of contract, as a result of which, respondent Company terminated Agreement to sell, retained possession of property and forfeited 20% of sale consideration - Appellant Company went into liquidation - Unit holders having booked flats in the appellant Company claimed rights in the property as bookings were allowed under Agreement to sell - However, it was provided that company shall have no right to execute sub-lease or transfer unless entire sale consideration has been pad - U/S. 54 of T.P Act, agreement to sell does not create any right in property - Permission to take bookings does not confer title or transferable interest in the property - Company in liquidation having defaulted in payment as a result the respondent Company validly terminated ATS and retained possession - There was a liquidated damages condition in the ATS - Forfeiture clause would be enforceable as liquidated damages - Hence, homebuyers had no interest in the property. (Para 17, 18, 27, 29)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.374(2) - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.307, S.323 - Attempt to murder - Appeal against conviction and sentence - On account of dispute over sale of house, accused persons attacked deceased with scissor, kicks and fists resulting in his death - During appeal parties sought compounding of offence - Offence u/S.323 was compoundable and based on voluntary compromise conviction u/S.323 was set aside - However offence u/S.307 was non-compoundable - Therefore conviction u/S.307 was proper - Considering compromise and period already served sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Para 12,16,17,18)

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.20 - Relief of specific performance - Denial - Plea of vendee that vendor's mother had borrowed money and due to her inability to repay said amount, compromise was reached and vendor had agreed to execute suit sale agreement for sum of Rs.45 lacs - Despite having custody of pro-notes, cheques and undertaking document said to have been executed by vendor's mother, vendee had not chosen to produce same before Court - Vendee in her deposition admitted that she never had intention to purchase property under sale agreement and she only wanted her money back - Execution of sale agreement was obtained only as security for borrowings made by vendor's mother and not with intention to enforce same to get sale deed in favour of vendee - Vendor had specifically disputed her signature in sale agreement and requested for sending same for expert opinion - Vendee had not taken any steps to send said document for expert opinion - Vendee had not discharged his burden to establish execution of sale agreement - Hence, dismissal of suit was proper. (Para 25, 26, 27)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528 - Quashing of proceedings - Compromise - Offences involved were not heinous offences nor was there serious offence of mental depravity involved in case rather same relates to private dispute between parties - Because of complete settlement between offender and victim, possibility of conviction of accused remote and bleak - Continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with victim - Criminal proceedings were quashed. (Para 6, 7, 8)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Recovery from employee - Claim barred by limitation - Employee was sponsored by NIT to pursue Ph.D. program from 1993 to 1996 - He was allowed to rejoin institute in 1996 after completing program - Employee was retired on superannuation - NIT issued order demanding Rs. 7,62,000/- plus interest - Said amount covered leave salary, study allowance, fees, and other expenses incurred during his Ph.D - Employee had rejoined duty in 1996, and institute waited more than 24 years to raise demand in 2020 - NIT had allowed employee to rejoin, did not initiate any recovery proceedings throughout his service, and allowed him to retire - Same amounts to implied acceptance or gross negligence on part of Institute - Institute chose not to deduct expenditure from his monthly salary for over two decades - Considering huge lapse of time and employee's retired status, enforcing recovery would cause extreme hardship - Order of recovery from employee was quashed. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (2 of 2007), S.3 - Forest (Conservation) Act (69 of 1980), S.2 - The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act (11 of 2015), S.29 - Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules (2008), R.13 - Diversion of forest land for coal mining - Withdrawal of forest rights - Challenge against - Perusal of record indicated that due to a mistake, three forest rights were conferred on villagers of Ghatbarra in 2013 wherein order passed by Central Government under provisions of S.2 of Act of 1980 and order of diversion passed by State Government in 2012 were not taken into consideration - Said mistake was rectified as order conferring rights was void ab initio - Villagers upon whom such forest rights were conferred did not approach Court against order cancelling such rights - Members of petitioner Samiti were supposedly residents of Ghatbarra village, but no document had been placed on record to substantiate such fact and it was also apparent that Gram Sabha had also not authorized petitioner to file such petition - Petitioners had also not pleaded that members of said Samiti ever claimed forest rights - Even though Committee which had granted forest rights had no authority of law to revoke it, but aggrieved party had to establish such conferment of rights upon them and that decision to withdraw such right was deliberate and mala fide - No evidence was lead to establish fact that individual or community forest rights were conferred upon them at any point in time - Even otherwise, respondent had already completed Phase I mining in 2022 and permission for Phase II was granted by Central Government in same year - Petitioners had not only failed to prove their locus but there was also suppression of material facts as petitioners had failed to disclose fact with regard to dismissal of an earlier writ challenging acquisition of land for coal block - In view of same, no interference was warranted. (Para 16, 17, 18, 32, 34, 39)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.482 - Quashing of FIR - Allegation of forgery against accused - Civil proceedings pending between accused and complainant and subject matter of dispute, including forgery was also subject of said civil suit - Since civil suit already pending before competent Court to decide ownership dispute between parties, matter primarily falls within realm of civil jurisdiction - Considering fact that dispute was civil in nature and accused also appeared to be victim of alleged fraud - Directions given to authority to not to take any coercive steps against accused. (Para 5,6)

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 8, S. 10 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Sexual assault - Leave to appeal against acquittal - Prayer for - Allegation that accused who was stated to be a yoga teacher, had sexually assaulted 15 year old minor girl child and her younger sister aged about 09 years - Complaint did not mentioned detail about date and manner in which alleged offence was committed - There exists several contradictions in versions narrated by minor girls child in regard to manner in which alleged offence was committed - There was delay in lodging complaint - No satisfactory grounds were pleaded to justify the delay in giving complaint - Therefore, delay casts serious aspersions on case of prosecution which go to root of case - Prosecution had failed to cogently establish its prima facie case against accused - Leave to appeal against acquittal was not granted. (Para 31, 38, 39)

(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 29 - Presumption of commission of offence - When can be applicable - While S. 29 of POCSO Act provides for a presumption as to commission of certain offences, said presumption is not absolute in nature and only comes into play once prosecution establishes foundational facts. (Para 40)

(A) Customs Act (52 of 1962), Ss. 47 , 110 - Release of goods - Claim for - Petitioner filed Bill of Entry for importing dry dates and after clearing goods under S.47 of Customs Act, the Respondents-DRI officials, led by Intelligence Officer, made phone calls to Customs brokers and transporters, allegedly coercing them to return cleared goods to CFS, without following any legal procedure - Intelligence Officer ignored statutory clearance orders and acted outside scope of law - Although petitioner was accused of misdeclaring Country of origin, no formal Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) was issued or legal process was followed before goods were returned to CFS - DRI officials failed to provide any contemporaneous record or justification for their actions - Even if intelligence suggested link to Pakistan, no legal steps were taken to revoke clearance order - While goods may have been prohibited, the process of determining this must be done through due legal procedures, which were not followed - Directions were issued to DRI officials to issue SCN to petitioner and if this was not done, goods must be released with redemption fine or Bank guarantee. (Para 47, 49, 53, 54)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.8, R.6-A - Counter-claim - Permission to file - Challenge against - Defendant failed to appear before Court and did not file its written statement within prescribed time - Issues were framed and oral evidence of plaintiff was led - Once trial has commenced post issue framing, counter-claim cannot be filed - Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing counter-claim after trial had commenced. (Para 14,15,16,17,18)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.497 - Release of vehicle - Vehicle in question was seized with contraband - Petitioner-owner was found to be seated in said vehicle - Vehicle in question was parked in open space and it was deteriorating day-by-day - Documents on record showed that petitioner had taken said vehicle in loan and he was paying EMI of Rs.20,600/- p.m. - Considering fact that petitioner took vehicle on loan and condition of vehicle was deteriorating - Hence, directions were issued to release vehicle. (Para 6,10)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.389 - Suspension of sentence - Failure in compliance of bail order - Delayed release of prisoners due to non-communication of bail orders - Accused was remained incarcerated for approximately eight years after his sentence was suspended and bail granted by High Court - Said delay was caused by the non-communication of bail order to jail authorities and relevant District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) - Initial bail condition, requiring deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 was subsequently modified to allow release of accused on personal bond - State authorities was directed to implement mechanisms to ensure prompt compliance with judicial orders and adherence to statutory mandates, particularly concerning POCSO Act. (Para 19, 20, 21)

(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S.27(2) - Medical examination of rape victim - Sexual assault upon minor - S.27(2) of POCSO Act specifically mandates that in case victim girl child, medical examination shall be conducted by a woman doctor - 10-year-old minor victim girl, was subjected to medical examination by male doctor - Violation of statutory law - Additional Chief Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare was directed to ensure statutory mandate complied with by guaranteeing posting/deputation of female doctors in each and every Hospital throughout State and non-compliance with these directions would amount to contempt of court - Order was also directed to be communicated to Chief Secretary and relevant Health and Medical officials.
(Para 22, 26, 27, 28)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of proceedings - Proceedings were initiated for commission of offences punishable u/Ss. 323, 341, 354, 504, 506, 34 of Penal Code and Ss.3 (1) (g), 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Parties to dispute arrived at amicable settlement and resolved matter - Perusal of record revealed that offence involved was not heinous offence - In view of settlement between parties - Proceedings were quashed. (Para 6,7)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.407 - Transfer of case - For free and fair investigation - Grievance of petitioner that his son died due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, but investigation had not proceeded further - Authority stated that it was found that petitioner's son while driving motor vehicle, had hit against street dog and fell down and died - After investigation matter was closed and RCS was yet to served - Hence, direction was issued upon authority to serve RCS to petitioner within period of one week. (Para 5)

(A) Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act (4 of 1986), S.7 - Cancellation of patta - Legality - Subject land was classified as Govt. land as per land records - Land was assigned to legal heirs of original owner on condition that assigned land shall not be sold or alienated before expiry of period of 20 years - Without title over said property, legal heirs of original owner executed PoA in favour of petitioners - Further, there was no record to show that petitioner's vendor's father purchased said land - Cancellation of patta was proper. (Para 11, 12)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S.5 - Condonation of delay - Delay of 1340 days in filing civil miscellaneous petition - Said petitioner was filed for restoration of writ petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution - Petitioner stated that they were having no knowledge about fate of writ petition which stood dismissed - Said order had come to knowledge of petitioners after lapse of 1340 days then instant civil miscellaneous petitioner was filed for restoration along with delay condonation application - Merely by making bald statement that petitioners were having no knowledge about fate of writ petition, it cannot be said to be sufficient cause - No ground taken in specific word in delay condonation application - Explanation furnished by petitioners cannot be said to be sufficient cause to condone inordinate delay - Hence, application for condonation of delay was dismissed. (Para 23,24,25,26)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Appointment - Eligibility criteria - Post of Professor of Practice - Petitioners sought for quashing of norms or qualifications stipulated by State Govt. on ground that they differ from guidelines set by AICTE - As per AICTE for faculty recruitment of PoP, Institutions may avail the services of Industry experts having 5 years and 8 years experience in emerging/multidisciplinary area - However, authority prescribed qualification for post with qualification of B.E./B.Tech and M.E/M.Tech in relevant discipline with experience of 15 years of industrial experience for post of PoP, 10 years of industrial experience for post of Associate PoP and 5 years of industrial experience for post of Assistant PoP - It is settled law that standards prescribed by State Government could not be adverse to, or lower than, standards fixed by AICTE, however, State Government can prescribe standards higher or additional to those prescribed by AICTE - In view of settled law, State Government can prescribe higher or additional clarification for post of PoP/Associate PoP/Assistant PoP - There was no illegality in Norms for faculty Recruitment in Affiliated Colleges. (Para 8, 9, 13)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302, S.201, S.34 - Murder and causing disappearance of evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Allegation that accused along with co-accused persons committed murder of deceased by strangulation and to suppress death, dead body was thrown in canal - No eye-witness to incident - Prosecution witness who deposed of deceased lastly seen with accused persons admitted in cross-examination that accused persons were not known to him - He further admitted that he cannot say as to where accused persons were living and had never met accused persons - Neither any eye-witness nor any evidence of last seen or any scientific evidence to connect accused persons with alleged murder - Conviction of accused persons merely on basis of surmises and conjectures cannot be sustained - Hence, order of conviction was not proper and set aside. (Para 27,29)

(A) Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act (17 of 1961), S.152 - No Objection Certificate - Refusal to grant - Landowners intended to put up constructions in subject land and applied for planning approval - Petitioners' submitted that proceedings were declared as lapsed - Petitioners' further submitted that in a writ petition filed by similarly situated persons, it was held that entire land acquisition proceedings were declared as lapsed and direction was issued to Board for issuing NOC - Taking into consideration submission made by petitioners', refusal to grant NOC was held as erroneous. (Para 6.2, 6.3)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Compensation - Determination - Documentary evidence including FIR, charge sheet, medical bills, disability certificate, lease agreement, sale deed and surgical vouchers were produced - Medical witnesses conclusively established permanent and total disability - Financial documents and testimonies of physiotherapists and attendants proved continuous treatment and lifelong dependency - Petitioner's lease agreements sale deeds and agricultural activities substantiated that he was engaged in business and agriculture - Tribunal's assessment of Rs 20,000 monthly income was reasonable - Tribunal was empowered to assess income based on evidence, background, and probabilities - There is no legal embargo on awarding compensation higher than the amount claimed, if evidence justifies it - Award of compensation by tribunal was just, proper and based on cogent evidence - Insurance Company and other respondents were directed jointly and severally deposit Rs 1,30,00,000 with 7.5% interest within two months. (Para 56, 63, 64)

(A) M. P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam (4 of 1991), S. 5(a), S. 5(b) - Order of externment - Challenge against - District Magistrate had considered five cases registered against petitioner and one prohibitory proceedings - Four cases registered against petitioner were ended in acquittal - However, in one case, petitioner was convicted but his sentence was suspended - Said case was arisen out of an incident occurred in 2010 - Prohibitory proceedings were registered against petitioner in 2017 - There was no proximity between last case registered against petitioner and issuance of show cause notice to him for externment - For a period of four years, no case was registered against him - Magistrate had baldly enumerated list of offences registered against petitioner to hold that he was a daring habitual criminal - There was no material before Magistrate to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner in recent past had involved himself in criminal activities or that he was showing a way of life which was threatening or dangerous to public peace and tranquillity - Most of the cases were old and stale - There was no satisfaction of conditions mentioned under S. 5(b)(i) and (ii) - Order of externment was quashed. (Para 9, 15, 16, 18)

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S.4 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 363, S. 366, S.376 - Kidnapping and rape - Proof of age - Ossification test - School record relied upon to prove the age of prosecutrix was based merely on an affidavit of her father and not on any birth certificate or contemporaneous record - Parents statements regarding age were inconsistent - Ossification test conducted by Safdarjung Hospital assessed age between 17 and 18 years - Applying permissible margin of error of two years, prosecutrix was held major at the time of alleged offence - When the determination of age was doubtful, benefit had to be extended to the accused - Evidence on record indicated consensual elopement rather than forcible kidnapping or rape - Conduct of prosecutrix in accompanying the accused and travelling publicly without raising alarm discredited the allegation of coercion - Testimony of prosecutrix was inconsistent and unreliable - Conviction under Ss. 363, 366, 376 IPC and S. 4 POCSO Act was unsustainable - Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. (Para 66,67,73,74,75,77)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 227 - Discharge order - Revision petition against - Petition had been filed with a delay of more than 300 days - Explanation of administrative and procedural delays in obtaining departmental approvals had not constituted sufficient cause for condonation - Trial court had rightly discharged the respondent, as WhatsApp and text messages exchanged between the prosecutrix and respondent had revealed a consensual romantic relationship inconsistent with allegations of sexual assault - Prosecutrix had continued to send affectionate messages even after the alleged incidents and complaint had been made only after the respondent had started ignoring her - Mere consistency of the prosecutrix's statement could not outweigh inherent improbabilities and documentary contradictions - Revisional jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and only when grave miscarriage of justice was apparent - Delay had not been satisfactorily explained and no grave suspicion had arisen from the material on record - No interference warranted with impugned order. (Para 21,22,23,24,25,26,27)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.386 - Sentence - Modification of - Accused persons were convicted for commission of offence punishable u/Ss. 324,341,34 of Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 434 days - Parties to dispute entered into compromise without any threat, inducement or coercion - Complainant had no objection to compounding offence - Accused persons had already undergone jail sentence of 88 days, 434 days and 6 days respectively - Hence, sentence was reduced to period already undergone by accused persons. (Para 11)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.483 - Bail - Grant of - Allegation that accused persons instigated deceased to commit suicide due to which deceased committed suicide by hanging - Investigation completed - Accused persons were homemakers aged 24 years and 32 years having family responsibilities - No criminal antecedents against accused persons - No compelling reason to continue incarceration of accused persons - No likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses by accused persons - Hence, bail was granted. (Para 6)

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S.5, S.6 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.363, S.366 - Kidnaping and rape - Circumstantial evidence - Allegations that accused kidnapped victim and committed penetrative sexual assault on victim - Victim and accused were relatives and in love relationship which was accepted by both families - Victim's father made turn around due to his belief in God and marriage between accused and victim could not be performed - Victim in her statement clearly narrated her journey of love relationship with accused and her version of physical relationship appeared to be magnified - Doctor found no injuries on private parts and no external injuries appeared on body of victim - Perusal of statement of victim and doctor showed that no penetrative sexual assault took place - Contradiction in statement of victim and her father - As per evidence on record no abduction, kidnapping for forcible penetrative sexual assault was committed - Chain of circumstances not completed to prove guilt of accused - Hence, order of conviction was not proper and set aside. (Para 6)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.376 (1) - Rape - Circumstantial evidence - Allegation that accused caught hold prosecutrix, gagged her mouth by towel, caught her both hands and committed rape - No eyewitness to incident - Prosecutrix deposed that when she was fetching fodder from near field, accused came assaulted her, tied her mouth by towel, undressed her, did act with her and thereafter cleaned discharge on her clothes and ran away - This elaborate version was self-explanatory to describe offence of rape - Prosecution witnesses supported prosecution regarding conduct of prosecutrix after incident to whom victim narrated incident who were available to her at first instance - As per FSL report, sperm were found on petticoat collected from prosecutrix by doctor regarding which victim had stated that accused cleaned his discharge on her clothes - No enmity to falsely implicate accused had been brought on record - Testimony of prosecutrix was not contradictory or inconsistent with other witnesses and qualified standard of sterling quality - Ocular evidence was corroborated with medical evidence - Chain of circumstances was completed to prove guilt of accused - Hence, order of conviction was proper. (Para 16,18)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Seniority - Re-fixation of seniority - Challenge against impugned order whereby direction was issued upon petitioner-authority to re-fix seniority to respondent-candidate at par with similarly situated candidates - Respondent was part of same selection process as like other candidates, but was appointed pursuant to directions issued in writ petition filed by him - Authorities not objected to candidature of respondent and allowed him to participate in selection process without intervention of Court and was appointed as Sub-Inspector in year 2010 along with other candidates who participate in same selection process - Once authorities accepted judgement rendered in writ petition filed by respondent and appointed him as Sub-Inspector, they cannot deny benefit of notional appointment to petitioner from date of similarly recruited candidates - Hence, impugned order was proper. (Para 13, 15)

(A) T. N. Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act (42 of 2017), S.37 (1) (b) - Application for production of document - Dismissal - Ground that four documents sought to be marked by petitioner-tenant were not relevant to case - Petitioner had filed application to receive additional documents such as sale deed, electricity receipts etc. - Petitioner in his counter statement had mentioned that he was occupying premises as true owner without any interference by adverse possession and occupation would be treated as adverse possession of property - In order of establish case of petitioner, document sought to be relied on by petitioner could be received subject to proof and relevancy - Also, in order to decide lis pending between parties, opportunity should have been provided to petitioner to mark certain documents - Hence, order dismissing application was not proper. (Para 8,9)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.26, R.9 - Appointment of Advocate Commissioner - Refusal - Ground that petitioner-plaintiff sought to collect evidence through Advocate Commissioner - Plaintiff pleaded that defendants who were adjacent land owners were trying to encroach upon plaintiff's land without any basis - When suit is for permanent injunction and according to plaintiff he was in possession of suit schedule property, no encroachment was made by defendant, there was no necessity to appoint Advocate commissioner - Burden lies on plaintiff to establish his case in manner known to law and appointment of Advocate Commissioner solely for purpose of collection of evidence was unwarranted - Refusal was proper. (Para 4)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 8, R. 5, O. 8, R. 10 - Written statement - Non-filing of - Effect - If a written statement is not filed by defendant, then two options will be available to trial Court i.e. to pronounce judgment and decree on basis of plaint pleadings, or it can call upon plaintiff to prove facts - Since it is a permissible option, no illegality was committed by trial Court by not pronouncing judgment at once and had rightly invited plaintiff to prove his case. (Para 10(ii), (iii))

(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34 - Suit for declaration - Dismissal of - Validity of patta - Specific pleading that after purchasing land from ex-Zamindar, father of plaintiff had become owner of property - No sale deed was executed by ex-Zamindar in favour of father of plaintiff - Plaintiff pleaded that his father had come in possession of property by virtue of Patta executed by ex-Zamindar - Witness claimed that he had seen father of plaintiff in possession from 1958 - Father of plaintiff was never placed in possession of property in 1945 - Furthermore, plaintiff had not filed any revenue document to show that name of his father was ever recorded in revenue record, either as a leaseholder or as a bhumiswami either after 1945 or 1959 - Plaintiff had failed to prove that ex-Zamindar had ever executed a Patta in favour of his father - Dismissal of suit was proper. (Para 11(ix), (x), (xii), (xiii))

(C) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 38 - Relief of permanent injunction - Entitlement - Since plaintiff had failed to prove that his father was ever placed in possession of disputed property by virtue of Patta, he was not entitled to relief of injunction. (Para 12)

(A) M. P. Land Revenue Code (20 of 1959), S. 158(1)(b) - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 39, R. 1, O. 39, R. 2 - Temporary injunction - Refusal to grant - Plaintiff had filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction - In 1975, revenue records were changed, recording suit property in name of Temple and Bhumi Swami was Priest - State along with its reply had filed a copy of 'Will' executed by Priest wherein it was mentioned that God was real owner - Plaintiff was only manager - It was prima facie established that plaintiff had only right to manage the day to day affairs of Temple - Order refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff was proper. (Para 17)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.21, R.97 - Execution of decree - Objection by third party - Decree for specific performance - Third party claimed superior title and possession based on registered general power of attorney-cum-sale agreement allegedly was executed by original owner in his favour - Sale agreement in favour of decree holder was prior in time to general power of attorney-cum-sale agreement of third party - It was not established that agreement executed in favour of decree holder was ante-dated - General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement does not transfer any title, right, or interest in immovable property - Document produced by third party conferred no title - Since prior agreement of decree holder was validated in suit, and registered sale deed was executed by Court, decree holder hold valid title and was entitled to possession - Third party had no right to resist or obstruct delivery of the possession to decree holder - Decree holder was entitled for delivery of possession. (Para 44, 45, 47)