(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.21, R.64, O.21, R.66, O.21, R.90 (3) (As amended by Act 104 of 1976) - Execution of decree - Auction sale - Belated objection - On objection raised by judgment debtor, sale was set aside by High Court on the ground that executing Court had not examined whether sale of a part of the property would have satisfied the decree - After amendment of 1976, O.21 R.90(3) of CPC prohibits any ground being raised for setting aside sale if such ground could have been taken before the date of drawing up sale proclamation - Judgment debtors were put on notice at every stage, participated to an extent and then refrained from doing so - Since judgment debtors failed to raise objection at the appropriate stage despite due notice, they would be barred from doing so belatedly - Setting aside of sale by the High Court assuming that obligation under O.21, R.66(2)(a) of CPC would operate independently upon the executing Court, irrespective of lapse on the part of judgment debtors, was erroneous. (Para 15, 17, 18, 19)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of proceedings - Offence of rape - Consensual relationship - Allegation that accused, a practising advocate, established physical relations with complainant on pretext of marriage - Accused allegedly met complainant for the first time in reference to a case which was instituted by her against her husband - The relationship had continued for a long period of 3 yrs - FIR showed that complainant met accused whenever he expressed a desire to meet her - Complainant who was a major and an educated individual, voluntarily associated with accused and entered into physical intimacy on her own volition - Physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instance of offence of rape merely because relationship failed to culminate in marriage - At the relevant time, marriage of complainant was subsisting - Continuation of criminal proceedings would be abuse of process of court - FIR and chargesheet was quashed. (Para 28, 33, 34, 37, 40, 41)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Prima facie case - Offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust in furtherance of criminal conspiracy - Complaint against accused related to sale of partnership property by accused - Offence of cheating was not made out in the absence of material to attribute any fraudulent or dishonest intention to accused at time of creation of partnership agreement - Merely alleging that accused dishonestly induced complainant to part with property of partnership firm and subsequently sold it to a third party would not satisfy the test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a valuable security - Offence of criminal breach of trust was also not made out in the absence of material to show entrustment of property to accused, especially since partnership and supplementary deeds clearly indicated that property was solely owned by accused - Offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are antithetical to each other and cannot coexist simultaneously in same set of facts - Allegations had been made against accused with mala fide intent - Complainant was already pursuing remedy of civil suit - Continuing criminal proceedings would cause undue harassment - Complaint and all consequent proceedings were quashed (Para 19 to 25, 27, 29)

(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965), S. 18, S. 12(1) - Eviction - Appeal against order for - Fresh application u/S. 12(1) - Whether mandatory - In an Appeal challenging eviction order u/S. 12(3) of the Act of 1965, a fresh application u/S. 12(1) of the Act, 1965 is not mandatory - In cases where supervening events have taken place during the pendency of Appeal, parties would have the liberty to file an application u/S. 12 of the Act, 1965 once again before the Appellate Authority.

(B) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965), S. 12(3), S. 11 - Eviction - Non-payment of rent - Grant of time to pay rent - Plea of tenant that Appellate Authority erred in granting only four days instead of four weeks' time to deposit arrears - Act does not provide that even the Appellate Authority must give four weeks' time to the tenant to pay outstanding rent determined by Rent Controller - Further, as the Appellate Authority does not have to pass an order u/S. 12(3) once again, it is not obliged to give four weeks' time to deposit the outstanding rent - Tenant was occupying two premier shops in prime location of the city, for the last more than five years without paying any rent, despite a money decree passed against him - Plea was not tenable (Para 43, 44, 45, 46, 47)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 36 - Letters Patent (Bombay), Cl. 15 - Letters Patent appeals - Maintainability - On application for execution of arbitral award, filed by appellant , seeking issuance of notice under O.21, R. 22 of CPC , Single Judge of High Court held that execution must proceed and a notice under O.21, R. 22 of CPC should issue - Respondent uncle of appellant filed a chamber summons raising objections, to the execution of the arbitral award and assailing the same as being a nullity - Single Judge held that arbitral award had attained finality and could neither be set aside under the Act nor could be declared as nullity - Letters patent appeals were filed challenging both the orders - Orders had been passed by single judge in course of execution of arbitral award and therefore, were traceable to Act of 1996 and not to CPC - Respondent was arrayed in execution proceedings as legal representative/executor of the Will of appellant's father and not in his individual capacity - Respondent would step into shoes of judgment debtor for limited purpose of execution - The Letters Patent Appeals were not maintainable - Division Bench had erred in admitting appeals without assigning any reasons - Execution proceedings were restored. (Para 19, 22)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 21, R. 22, O. 21, R. 23 - Execution proceedings - Notice to show case - Nature of provision for - Explained

(A) National Green Tribunal Act (19 of 2010), S. 16(h), S. 2(c), S. 2(g), S. 2(j), S. 2(m) - Appeal against environmental clearance - Limitation for - Commencement of - Period of limitation will commence from earliest of date on which communication was carried out by any of duty bearers.

(B) National Green Tribunal Act (19 of 2010), S. 16(h) - Appeal - Bar of limitation - EC granted on 05.01.2017 was uploaded on website of MoEF and CC on same day - Project Proponent had taken steps for compliance such as submitting EC to concerned Panchayats, and same was acknowledged on 09.01.2017 - By advertising grant of EC in two local newspapers on 11.01.2017, duty to communicate was completed - Given NGT's finding that EC was uploaded and made publicly accessible on 05.01.2017, 30 days limitation period would commence from that date - Period of 90 days had also expired when appeal was filed on 19.04.2017 - Dismissal of appeal on ground of bar of limitation was proper. (Para 16, 17, 81)

(C) National Green Tribunal Act (19 of 2010), S. 16(h) - Grant of environmental clearance - Effective communication of - Plea of appellant that project proponent had failed in its duty 'to communicate' by not publishing EC in its entirety in two newspapers as mandated by Cl.10 of EIA Notification - It would be sufficient compliance, if project proponent publishes grant of EC, and indicates therein substance of conditions and safeguards - It is not part of legal requirement that entirety of environmental clearance should be published in newspaper - Finding of Tribunal that there was complete and effective communication of order granting environmental clearance, was proper. (Para 19, 20, 21)

(A) Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act (10 of 1999), S. 7, S. 12 - Land acquisition - Compensation determined by agreement - Effect - Once agreement u/Ss. 7(2) and 7(4) of the 1997 Act was arrived at, it became a concluded contract u/S. 3 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - A contract voluntarily entered into between the parties, shall not be disturbed by taking recourse to the statutory provisions, which are sought to be excluded by such contract - Grant of interest by the High Court by applying S. 12 of the 1997 Act to a voluntary agreement entered into between the parties u/S. 7 of the 1997 Act, was erroneous.

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.31(7)(a), (b) (prior to the 2015 Amendment to the Act, 1996), S.34, S.34(2A) - Arbitral award - Grant of interest - Challenge against rate of interest - Arbitrator had directed appellants to pay the awarded sum with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of statement of claim till date of realization - Nature of loan transaction between parties was purely commercial - Courts below had analysed evidence as regards genuineness of loan agreement, in detail and had concurrently affirmed rate of interest - Proviso to S.34(2A) of Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits re-appreciation of evidence - Constant and continuing defaults on the part of appellant, deprived respondent of its right to use and enjoy monies for several years - It cannot be said that imposition of an exorbitant interest in the background of contemporary commercial practices, would be against fundamental policy of Indian Law, or against basic notions of morality or justice - Any controversy as to rate of interest falls outside the scope of challenge on ground of conflict with public policy of India unless rate of interest is shown to be so unreasonable as to shock conscience of the Court - High Court had rightly refused to interfere with the award. (Para 35, 36, 39, 45, 47, 48, 53, 56)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 142 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (45 of 2023), S. 115(2), S. 351(2), S. 351(3), S. 352, S. 310(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528 - Partial quashing of FIR - Challenge against - On basis of settlement between parties, petition for quashing of FIR was allowed by High Court as regards offences punishable under Ss. 115(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 352 of BNS - However, proceedings were permitted to be continued in respect of offence punishable under S.310(2) of BNS, on ground that offence of dacoity was not an offence personal to the complainant, as alleged act had occurred within premises of school and pertained to its property - Contents of FIR indicated that primary motive of accused persons was to retrieve specific institutional files/information and not to seek any wrongful gain - Also, all property had been returned to complainant - Since, factual matrix forming basis of all offences was inseparable and arose from a single transaction, compromise which was accepted as sufficient to quash other offences, equally diluted foundation of charge of dacoity - In exercise of powers under Art. 142 of Constitution, FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom were quashed in entirety. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Identification of accused - Testimony of sole injured eyewitness - Reliability - Accused alongwith other co-accused persons allegedly committed murder of deceased and injured his wife - After the incident sole injured eyewitness had shifted to Canada - Testimony of said witness was recorded through video conferencing after a lapse of nearly eight and a half years from the incident - Witness had admitted that her distance vision was weak and that she could not see objects at a distance without spectacles - Witness was not wearing spectacles at the time of her deposition via video conferencing - Even at the time of the incident, witness was aged about 73 years and was infirm - In cross examination witness had denied having gone to the Court for identifying the four assailants - Witness had further stated in her cross examination that accused was wearing a black coloured shirt at the time of incident - Same was an improvement introduced for the first time - In statement u/S 161 Cr P C ,no physical description of the accused persons or clothes worn by them at the time of the incident was mentioned - Dock identification of accused by sole injured eyewitness, could not be relied on - Conviction was set aside (Para 50, 52, 54, 56, 71)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.9 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Infirmities in TIP - Effect of - Accused alongwith other co-accused persons allegedly committed murder of deceased and injured his wife - It is the duty of the prosecution to establish beyond doubt that right from the time of arrest, the accused was kept 'baparda' to rule out the possibility of his face being seen before the identification proceedings are conducted - There was no mention in arrest memo that face of accused was kept muffled after his arrest - Sole injured eyewitness had denied having met the police or having visited Court after being discharged from hospital - There was no signature of said identifying witness on any of the documents prepared in connection with the TIP - Prosecution version that efforts made to subject the accused to TIP failed on account of their refusal, was not established - High Court erred in drawing adverse inference against accused on ground that he declined to participate in TIP, since TIP itself was fundamentally flawed - Conviction was set aside (Para 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 71)

(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.27 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Recovery evidence - Reliability -Accused alongwith co-accused persons, committed murder of deceased and injured his wife - Prosecution placed reliance on alleged recoveries of looted articles, at instance of accused - However, sole injured eye-witness was not made to identify said articles during her testimony - Furthermore, son of sole eyewitness who was stated to have identified articles in TIP, was not examined during trial - Alleged recoveries could not be relied upon in the absence of credible evidence regarding identity of articles - Further, blood stains on pant allegedly worn by accused at time of incident, could not be matched with blood sample lifted from scene of occurrence - Mere availability of human blood on article would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty - Conviction was set aside (Para 67, 68, 71)

(D) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.147, S.148 - Recording of evidence - Video conferencing mode - Confronting witness with previous statement - Direction issued. (Para .)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act (2 of 1864), S.37A, S.38 - Auction sale - Challenge against - Appellant's husband had successfully bid for arrack shops but defaulted in making payments, as a result of which ex-parte decree was passed against him - Recovery proceedings were initiated after death of appellant's husband - Auction notice issued thereafter was challenged by legal heirs by way of a writ petition - Sale was held and confirmed during the pendency of writ petition - Statutory framework under Ss.37A and 38 of Revenue Recovery Act providing a mechanism for setting aside a sale of immovable property conducted under the Act, which prescribes a limitation period of 30 days from the date of sale, is mandatory - Admittedly, appellant did not file any application within said period prescribed under Revenue Recovery Act - Protection granted by High Court was restricted to confirmation of sale - Payments made by appellant were in pursuance of interim order passed by High Court and not as part of any application made under the Act - Appellant's failure to act under S.37A or S.38 of the Revenue Recovery Act within the prescribed time, barred any later challenge - Challenge against auction sale was rightly rejected by High Court. (Para 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24)

(A) Arms Act (54 of 1959), S.25 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.8, S.27 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Murder - Appreciation of evidence - Allegation that accused had shot dead the victim by using a pistol - Eye-witness/brother of deceased turned hostile - No independent witness identified accused or supported prosecution case regarding his presence at place of occurrence - Accused was not named in FIR initially but was implicated five days later through a supplementary statement of alleged eyewitness which was also denied in Court - Motive alleged by prosecution against accused was that in-laws of deceased had grudge against her due to losing case in Court against her and that accused was friend of co-accused son of 'jeth' of deceased - However, no order passed in favour of deceased was produced - No charge-sheet was filed against in-laws - Said co-accused had been acquitted - Motive was not proved - Further, it was not clear that recovered pistol was same which was used in commission of offence - Recovery was made from an unlocked iron box in a dwelling house accessible to other family members- Other household articles in room were neither seized nor proved by examining any independent witness from neighbourhood- Chain of custody of seized articles till deposit in FSL was not proved - Accused was acquitted (Para 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25)

(A) Insurance Act (4 of 1938), Preamble - Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S. 2 (1) (g) - Insurance claim - Repudiation of - Legality - Insurance claim as regards loss caused by an explosion in boiler, was repudiated by insurer - Boiler in question was certified and registered - Insurance policy was issued after the certificate of registration was provided - Accident occurred during subsistence of certificate of registration - Burden lay on the insurer to prove that boiler was not worthy of insurance cover or that such cover was obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of material facts or by playing fraud - Insurer had neither pleaded nor proved any such fact - A subsequent discovery of damage or corrosion cannot be used to repudiate the claim as it would defeat the main purpose of the insurance contract - Reports were not conclusive of any suppression/ misrepresentation or fraud played by the insured and facts stated therein were ambivalent in respect of applicability of exclusion clause - In the absence of a stand that boiler had a prescribed life and such life had expired or insured had failed to make full and complete disclosure which made contract voidable, rejection of claim by invoking exclusion clause, was erroneous. (Para 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 136, Art. 226, Art. 227 - Special leave to appeal - Alternate remedy - Parties had exchanged their pleadings, and matter was ripe for hearing - Relegating appellant to remedy under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India before the High Court would have only delayed decision by re-starting proceedings that could culminate before Supreme court - Prayer to relegate appellant to remedy under Art. 226, 227 was declined. (Para 42)

(A) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S. 2(1)(d) - Consumer - Scope of definition of - Purchase for commercial purpose - Complainant was an established company doing business, which bought product license to automate its processes - Object of purchase was not generation of self-employment but organising operations for maximisation of profits - Case of complainant did not fall within Explanation to S.2(1)(d) of Act of 1986 - Complainant was commercial entity - Purchase was made with view to automate processes of company for maximisation of profits -As regards said transaction, the complainant was not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1986 - State Commission and National Commission had rightly held that since purchase of goods/services was for a commercial purpose, complainant was not a "consumer". (Para 22, 27, 28)

(B) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S. 2(1)(d), S. 2(1)(d)(i), S. 2(1)(d)(ii) - Consumer - Definition of - Analysed and explained.

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 9(m), S. 10 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Aggravated sexual assault - Proof - Accused had allegedly committed aggravated sexual assault on minor prosecutrix - When mother of prosecutrix had gone inside to give food to accused, she saw accused wearing half shorts, sitting near legs of prosecutrix and when asked what he was doing there, accused had run away - Mother of prosecutrix had found that underwear of her daughter was down till her knees, and frock was pulled up to chest - Witness also stated that she called her husband and he came out to catch hold of accused who was running away, hit him near courtyard with a stick twice, but accused had managed to flee - Mother of prosecutrix stated that accused was from her colony and she knew him - Account of incident given by mother of prosecutrix was reliable - In medical examination, redness was noticed in private parts of prosecutrix - Fact that minor prosecutrix was in a frightened state upon seeing accused in Court, was a pointer in itself - Commission of offence by accused, was proved - Conviction was upheld. (Para 5.1, 5.2, 5.6, 6, 7, 9)

(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S. 9(m), S. 10 - Constitution of India, Art. 142 - Aggravated sexual assault - Sentence - Modification - Accused was convicted for committing offence of aggravated sexual assault - Sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment , imposed upon convict was maximum sentence prescribed under S. 10 of POCSO Act - Convict had undergone imprisonment for about 4 years and 5 months - Sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 years. (Para 9)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.48A, Art.51A(g) - Wild Life (Protection) Act (53 of 1972), S.18, S.26A - Wildlife sanctuary - Declaration as - Direction for - Court found that State of Jharkhand had been changing its stand time and again as regards notification of Saranda Forest as wildlife sanctuary - As per art.s 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution and judgments of the apex Court, State is required to recognize and protect areas of ecological significance, and particularly to conserve and protect wildlife and its inhabitants - State has a positive obligation and a mandate to provide statutory protection to forests and wildlife and declare ecologically significant areas to be statutorily protected - Report of WII, other expert bodies and affidavits filed by the State itself, indicated that the Saranda Forest required protection - Direction was issued that State Government shall notify the area comprising of 126 compartments as notified in 1968 notification, excluding six compartments, as a wildlife sanctuary within a period of three months - State was directed to give wide publicity to the fact that, neither the individual rights nor the community rights of the tribals and the forest dwellers in the said area would be adversely affected - As regards mining activities, directions issued earlier in present proceedings were reiterated (Para .)

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S. 37(1)(b)(ii) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 483 - Bail - Grant of - Offences under NDPS Act - High court concluded that there was no material to show that accused had any knowledge that consignment contained cocaine, without considering statements of accused and circumstances relied upon by prosecution including assertion that accused had placed orders for import, controlled logistics chain, coordinated with overseas supplier, and was present when consignment was opened - High Court neither adverted to allegation regarding prior involvement of accused in seizure of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances only days prior to seizure forming subject matter of complaint, nor considered prosecution's assertion regarding role of accused in arranging, importing, clearing and supervising consignments - Omission to consider said factors directly affected the statutory satisfaction required by S. 37(1) - Matter was remanded to High court for fresh consideration of prayer for bail, particularly keeping in view the parameters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act. (Para 14, 15, 16, 19)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.8, R.6A - Counter-claim against co-defendant - Whether permissible - Trial Court had admitted a counter claim by defendants impleaded subsequent to the institution of suit, against original defendant against whom plaintiff had sought specific performance of contract as regards same land - Defendants pleaded that 50 decimals of suit property had to be conveyed to them on basis of part payment made by them, but there was no agreement for same - Said defendants did not appear to have any concrete claim against the property - Said defendants had applied for being impleaded in the suit, after the period of limitation for seeking specific performance had expired - It has already been held that counter claim against co-defendant is not permissible - High Court had erred in admitting the counter-claim (Para 12, 13, 14, 16)

(A) Forest Act (16 of 1927), S. 20 - Protection of environment - Delhi Ridge - Failure to notify as reserved forest - Effect - Stated.

(B) Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986), S. 3(3) - Forest Act (16 of 1927), S. 20 - Protection of environment - Delhi ridge - Encroachments upon - Need for removal of - CEC and various other authorities had found that the Ridge Areas were being rampantly encroached upon - Failure to take steps to contain such rampant encroachments would result in frustrating the very purpose of ecological conservation of the Ridge and of the order passed earlier by Supreme Court regarding creation of the DRMB. (Para 36)

(C) Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986), S. 3(3) - Forest Act (16 of 1927), S. 20 - Protection of environment - Delhi ridge - Identification of Morphological Ridge - Need for - Stated.

(D) Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986), S. 3(3) - Forest Act (16 of 1927), S. 20 - National Green Tribunal Act (19 of 2010), S. 14 - Protection of environment - Delhi Ridge - Constitution of Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) - Need for statutory backing - Discussed. (Para .)

(E) Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986), S. 3(3) - Forest Act (16 of 1927), S. 20 - Protection of environment - Constitution of DRMB - Representative of the CEC in - Need for - Stated.

(F) Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986), S. 3(3) - Forest Act (16 of 1927), S. 20 - Protection of environment - Constitution of DRMB - Need for standing committee - Stated.

(G) Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986), S. 3(3) - Forest Act (16 of 1927), S. 20 - Protection of environment - Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) - Constitution and functions of - Directions issued

(A) T. N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960), S.10(2)(i) - Eviction - Wilful default - What amounts to - After Rent Controller had fixed fair rent , lessee challenged the fixation of fair rent but neither sought stay of its operation nor paid rent as per the fair rent so fixed - Payments were made belatedly and only after protracted litigation - Mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree/order under appeal - Lessee had defaulted in payment of rent and the default was wilful - Principle of judicial finality could not be invoked to unfairly deny a party the benefits of a judicial decision, operation of which did not suffer from any interdiction by the superior court - Notice under the Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of the Act of 1960 is not an indispensable condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Rent Controller - Absence of same would not ipso facto disentitle the landlord from maintaining the proceedings for eviction - Order for eviction on the ground of wilful default was proper (Para 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 137, Art. 145, Art, 14, Art. 21 - Supreme Court Rules (2013), O. 48, R. 2 - Curative jurisdiction - Exercise of - Manifest miscarriage of justice - While accused was convicted for offences punishable u/Ss. 302, 364, 376 and 201 of IPC in one of the Nithari murder cases, he was acquitted in 12 other connected identical cases on the basis of same evidentiary foundation - Allowing conviction to stand on an evidentiary basis that was subsequently rejected in identical connected cases and had resulted in acquittal of accused, would be a "manifest miscarriage of justice" and a violation of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution - Accused was entitled to acquittal (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 137, Art. 145 - Supreme Court Rules (2013), O. 48, R. 2 - Curative petition - Scope of - The controlling test for exercising curative jurisdiction is whether the earlier decision produces a result that offends the conscience of Court because of a fundamental defect in process or because of a grave miscarriage of justice - Curative petition is not a second review (Para 3, 4)

Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S. 47, O. 23, R. 3 - Execution of compromise decree - Violation of terms of decree - Burden of proof - Compromise decree provided for alternating custody of sacred idols between two villages and rotation of worship rights - Appellants pleaded that respondents violated terms of decree by refusing to rotate idols - Executing Court allowed execution based on mere presumption that long absence of dispute implied that arrangement was operational and respondents were in possession - Such inference was impermissible as findings based on presumption cannot replace proof - Primary onus lay on appellants/ DHs to prove wilful disobedience and violation of terms of decree - Appellants failed to establish that possession of idols ever passed to respondents or that other conditions of decree like payment of Rs. 2,000/- by respondents or appointment of trustees were ever complied with/acted upon - Burden of proof on appellants was not discharged - Execution cannot be sustained in absence of cogent proof of violation - Executing Court had erred in allowing execution on mere presumption - Executing court's order was rightly set aside by High Court. (Para 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)

(A) Finance Act (32 of 1994), S. 65(88), S. 65(89), S. 65B(44)(a)(i) - Demand of service tax and levy of penalty - Legality - Respondent partnership firm had not undertaken transactions/activities under concerned MOU, for service charges, commission, agency or consultancy - Said transactions were simple transactions of sale of land, which are expressly protected under the exception clause to the definition of 'Service' - Respondent firm was not 'Real Estate Agent' or 'Real Estate Consultant' as defined under Ss. 65(88) and 65(89) - Raising of demand of service tax and imposition of penalty was erroneous. (Para .)

(B) Finance Act (32 of 1994), S. 73(1) Proviso, S. 68 - Demand of service tax and levy of penalty - Limitation for - Invocation of extended period - Extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to S.73(1) was invoked by Directorate General alleging deliberate suppression and concealment of material facts on the part of respondent to evade tax liability - It was alleged that respondent failed to file periodical Service Tax returns and thus did not wholly and truly disclose material facts, with a purported intention to evade service tax - Admittedly, all the transactions were made through valid banking channels - Appellant had failed to adduce any evidence to establish such deliberate suppression and concealment of the material facts - There was no element of concealment or suppression by respondent warranting invocation of extended period of limitation. (Para 52, 53)

(C) Finance Act (32 of 1994), S. 65(88), S. 65(89), S. 65(105)(v) - Real Estate Agent - Scope of definition of - Discussed.

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 112 - Legitimacy of child - DNA test - Direction for - Legality - Direction for DNA testing was issued in connection with an FIR lodged by respondent/informant who was already married to another man, alleging that accused-doctor had established physical relationship with her under false promises of marriage, resulting in birth of child - Child was born during the subsistence of a valid marriage and the documents on record consistently recorded her husband as father of the child - Respondent did not plead non-access between herself and her husband during the period of conception - Further, in facts of case, direction for DNA test constituted a significant intrusion into the privacy and dignity of both, the appellant and the child, violating the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Neither the test of eminent need nor of balance of interests was satisfied - Paternity of the child was collateral to the primary allegations of cheating and harassment - Offences alleged did not, necessitate ascertainment of paternity or any forensic determination through DNA analysis - Order directing a DNA test was set aside. (Para 35, 36, 37, 44. 47, 48, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 112 - Legitimacy of child - Presumption regarding - Provision in S 112 Evidence Act - Explained (Para .)

(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 112 - Legitimacy of child - DNA testing - Permissibility - DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of course and must be subject to stringent safeguards to protect the dignity of individuals and the legitimacy of children born during the wedlock - Courts must remain vigilant against fishing inquiries masquerading as legitimate requests for scientific evidence and ensure that the sanctity of family relationships is not compromised by speculative or exploratory investigations (Para 28)

(D) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 112 - Legitimacy of child - Presumption regarding - Rebuttal of - Standard of proof required to displace presumption u/S. 112 must be higher than mere preponderance of probabilities but not the exacting standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt - Standard must be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that there existed no possibility of child being conceived through husband - A person seeking to rebut such presumption must, therefore adduce strong, cogent and unambiguous evidence establishing non-access, failing which, the statutory presumption must prevail (Para 34)

(E) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 112 - Constitution of India, Art. 21 - Legitimacy of child - DNA test - Direction for - Violation of right to privacy - Forcefully subjecting an individual to DNA testing constitutes a grave intrusion upon privacy and personal liberty - Such an encroachment can be justified only if it satisfies the threefold test of legality, legitimate State aim and proportionality (Para 45, 46)

(F) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 112, S. 114 (g) - Legitimacy of child - DNA test - Refusal to undergo - Adverse inference - Plea that adverse inference ought to be drawn against the appellant under Section 114(g) and (h) of the Evidence Act, on account of his refusal to undergo DNA testing - Unless presumption u/S 112 is first rebutted, no occasion arises for directing a DNA test - Therefore, where the prerequisites for ordering DNA test are not satisfied, question of drawing adverse inference from appellant's refusal to undergo same, would not arise at all - Plea was not accepted (Para 50, 51)

(G) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 112 - Criminal investigation - Direction for DNA test - When permissible - A direction for DNA testing must have a direct and demonstrable nexus with the offences under investigation - In the absence of such nexus, compelling a person to undergo DNA profiling, amounts to unwarranted intrusion into bodily autonomy and privacy, contrary to the safeguards implicit in Articles 20(3) and 21 of Constitution of India - Scientific procedures cannot be employed as instruments of speculation - Recourse to such scientific procedures must have demonstrable relevance to the charge and must be justified by compelling investigative need (Para 54, 59)

(A) Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (46 of 1988), S. 3(1), S. 9(f), S. 12 - Constitution of India, Art. 22(5) - Detention order - Validity - Allegation that detenue was habitually committing offences under NDPS Act, which were detrimental to public order - Grievance of detenue was regarding validity of confirmation order passed by State - State was bound to consider representation of detenue entirely independent of consideration of same by Advisory Board - Based on Advisory Board's report, draft of confirmation order was placed before competent authority and that was approved as it is - There was no whisper in proceedings' sheet that State had examined representation of detenue - No independent consideration of representation of detenue in confirmation order as required under S. 9(f) - Violation of Art. 22(5) of Constitution - Moreover, Detaining Authority had not considered bail orders passed in three criminal cases registered against detenue - Detention order and its confirmation order was quashed. (Para 15, 17, 18, 21)

(A) Foreigners Act (31 of 1946), S.9 - Foreign national - Declaration - Voters list of 1966 and 1971 pertained to projected father of petitioner - Next voter list which had been relied upon by petitioner was of year of 1989 which allegedly contains his name along with his projected father name - In said voter list, age of petitioner was shown to be 30 years -However, no evidence adduced by petitioner prior to 1989 to establish link - Though petitioner pleaded that his projected father had expired in year 2004, there was no document from 1989 till 2004 of petitioner to show his linkage with his father - Order declaring petitioner as foreign national was proper. (Para 16,17)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Employment - Displaced person - Claim for employment as per G.O. Ms.No.98 Irrigation (Proj.Wing) - Entitlement - Family of the petitioner was displaced since their house in Dachuru village submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir - Therefore, petitioner was eligible for employment under displaced persons quota - Government itself framed a policy of providing jobs to the displaced persons and also relaxed the condition of applying for appointment within one year, to the persons displaced prior to the issuance of G.O., which was later affirmed by Supreme Court - Hence, action of the State Authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of time barred was untenable - Further, petitioner was not entitled to seek to include his name in the second seniority list approved by the Government in view of the fact that, second seniority list was prepared for the candidates pertaining to the villages where water was not impounded and in the first seniority list, displaced persons of Dachuru village were included and he belonged to Dachuru village - Petitioner challenged the second seniority list approved by Government vide Memo, dated 26.12.2014 containing the names of 106 candidates - All these 106 candidates were really affected parties - Single Judge without directing the petitioner to implead the affected parties as party-respondents in the writ petition and also without affording any opportunity to the affected parties, set aside the Government Memo - Setting aside the second seniority list without affording any opportunity to the affected parties was clear violation of principles of natural justice - Petitioner entitled to be included in first seniority list under displaced persons quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98. (Para 8 (I)(b), (d), (II), (III), 10)

(A) J. & K. Land Revenue Act (12 of 1996 Smvt.), S. 26 - Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection, and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act (16 of 1997), S. 4 - Restoration of property - Claim for - Appellant having realised that her application under Act of 1997 against her brother who too was a migrant may not be maintainable, a supplementary application was made to stake her claim to share and partition - District Collector ought to have dismissed application of appellant filed under Act of 1997 and relegated her to remedy for seeking her share and partition by taking remedies in accordance with law - This was not done and instead, District Collector virtually gave a finding with regard to entitlement of appellant to share in property left behind by her mother and directed Tehsildar for follow-up action - Direction passed by District Collector calling upon Tehsildar to visit spot, demarcate property and put appellant in possession to extent of entitled share in property of her mother as per Hindu Succession Act was set aside - Order dismissing application under Act of 1997 filed by one migrant against other was proper. (Para 10, 11, 12, 13)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 482 - Anticipatory bail - Prayer for - Offence under Ss. 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 119(1), 190, 191(2), 117(2) and 119(2) of BNS - Allegation that accused along with other persons had attacked friend of complainant while they were riding motorcycle and due to which he sustained injuries on his head, hands, legs, and various other parts of body - Material placed on record did not disclose possibility of accused applicant fleeing from justice - Therefore, Court was inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to accused applicant - Anticipatory bail was granted subject to certain conditions. (Para 6)

(A) Guardians and Wards Act (8 of 1890), S.7, S.17 - Interim custody of two minor children - Grant to mother - Challenge against - Order granting custody to respondent-mother with structured visitation to the appellant-father - After reviewing record, interacting with children, and examining parties' conduct, Family Court had correctly applied paramount welfare principle under the Guardians and Wards Act - Father's unilateral removal of children to Gurugram and his violation of court-ordered visitation by taking them abroad undermined his claim - Allegations against the mother were unsubstantiated, and daughter, being mature, clearly expressed her preference to reside with the mother - Welfare transcends, material comfort and maternal care and emotional stability were central to the children's holistic well-being - Respondent, being the natural guardian and the parent better positioned to ensure emotional stability and consistent care giving, has rightly been entrusted with custody of the children - No interference warranted. (Para 21-26)

(A) T. N. Urban Local Bodies Act (9 of 1999), S.128 - Encroachment - Removal of - Challenge against - Plea of petitioners that no notice had been issued to them prior to passing order of removal of encroachment - Commissioner had stated that enquiry had taken place and matter was listed for continuation of submissions on 18.11.2025 before authority - Directions were issued to petitioners to appear before Director of Town and Country Planning , without anticipating any notice in this regard - State would supply copies of reports to petitioners in course of hearing and they should submit their replies and supporting documents in respect of title and orders should shall be passed in accordance with law. (Para 3)

(A) Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), S.3 - Food outlet at Beach - Termination of licence - Petitioner, a licensee operating a food outlet at Beach, challenged Tourism Department's termination of his 2020 licence for rent defaults, failure to furnish performance security, and keeping shop closed for four months - After issuing a preliminary notice and considering petitioner's reply admitting arrears, authority terminated licence and subsequently issued eviction notice - Licence is distinct from a lease, and a licensee cannot seek injunction to prevent termination or eviction, and only remedy available is a civil suit for compensation - Finding breaches on petitioner's part and holding petition not maintainable despite respondent being a State authority, petition was dismissed and interim order was vacated and any amount already deposited pursuant to that order may be appropriated, without prejudice to petitioner's right to seek damages through a civil suit. (Para 9,16,17,18)

(A) Maternity Benefit Act (53 of 1961), S.28 - Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules (1972), R.43 - Maternity leave - For birth of third child - Refusal to grant - Challenge against - Petitioner, a Government employee, gave birth to her third child on 08.08.2025 from her second marriage and applied for maternity leave under Rule 43 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which ordinarily permits leave only for women with less than two surviving children - While the rules do not provide maternity leave for a third child, Court considered petitioner's circumstances-including cruelty and desertion by her first husband, illness of her second child from first marriage, and that child born in second marriage is couple's first-along with principles underlying the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Balancing statutory limits and petitioner's social and personal situation, maternity leave for 12 weeks (84 days) was granted from the date of application. (Para 5)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Fifth Pay Commission - Implementation of, from particular date - Petitioners had not made Meghalaya Transport Corporation as a party - MTC, though government undertaking was Corporation with duly constituted Board of Directors, who manage company independently - As such, cannot be considered to be department of Government of Meghalaya or its employees taken to be government employees - Decision with regard to implementation of Fifth Pay Commission was based on Minutes of two meetings of Board of Directors of MTC keeping in mind financial constraints of Corporation - Corporation was the sole authority with manner and date of implementation, and same being executive decision of Corporation itself - Therefore, no interference in decision of Corporation was warranted. (Para 6, 8)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Encroachment - Direction for removal of - Challenge against - Order for removal of encroachment was passed on premise that petitioner had failed to produce documents in support of his claim that he had not encroached into Gramatana land - However, petitioner contended that along with his reply, he had produced documents - Reply submitted by petitioner showed that except claiming that he was in lawful possession of property, he did not produce any documents - Having regard to fact that order had civil consequence, it was appropriate to grant opportunity to petitioner to produce documents in support of his claim that he had not encroached into Gramatana land - Petitioner shall furnish all documents in support of his reply within 15 days and respondent shall pass appropriate orders after considering documents. (Para 12)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 483 - Bail - Prayer for grant of - Application for second time - Genesis of FIR lies in fact that victim did not return home after leaving for her college - Missing report was lodged on same day and on following day, her dead body was recovered from railway track - Investigation revealed that deceased was tavelling alone - GRP personnel had informed parents of deceased that deceased had not committed suicide but had died accidentally, having allegedly slipped while sitting on steps near exit door of train - There was long gap between last call between deceased and accused and there was no proximate nexus between alleged acts attributed to accused and death of deceased - In absence of any plausible rebuttal from respondents, Court was persuaded to hold that accused had succeeded in establishing strong prima facie case for grant of bail - Bail was granted subject to conditions. (Para 15, 16, 17)

(A) Bihar State Universities Act (23 of 1976), S. 57A (6) (As amended) - Appointment - Applicability of provisions of Act - Petitioner was discharging duties attached to sanctioned post of 'Lecturer' in Physics at college pursuant to being appointed on post after 19.04.2007 - To provide for empowerment to Selection Committee to scrutinize cases of all those working teachers appointed without recommendation of Bihar College Service Commission, sub-section(6) was introduced in S.57-A which introduced cut-off date of 19.04.2007 for considering cases of all such appointments made prior to 19.04.2007 who could not be recommended by erstwhile Bihar College Service Commission and were continuing on post for long duration - Class of persons who were appointed prior to 19.04.2007 were completely different to that of petitioner and similarly situated persons, who were admittedly appointed after 19.04.2007 - Held, University could not have relied upon S. 57-A(6) for not considering case of petitioner because petitioner did not fall in class of persons contemplated by S. 57-A(6) - It was incumbent on University to place matter of petitioner's appointment against post of 'Assistant Professor' in Physics at college before Statutory Seniority Approval and Pay Fixation Committee of University for grant of approval - Authorities were directed to take steps towards placing matter of appointment of petitioner against third sanctioned post of 'Assistant Professor' in Physics. (Para 7, 9, 11, 12)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Compassionate / rehabilitative employment - Appointment at vacancies reserved for displaced persons - Rejection of claim - Sustainability - Petitioners were family members of land-displaced persons under Telugu Ganga Project (TGP) - Their lands were acquired in 1984 and earlier for the project - Though lands were acquired earlier, actual displacement occurred only in 2005 when water entered their lands - Under G.O.Ms.No.98 Dt. 15:04:1986, 50% of vacancies were reserved for their families and applications were to be made within one year of displacement - But Govt. later issued another memo Dt 24:08:1987 and relaxed one-year time limit for those displaced before the G.O. of 1986 - Petitioners' acquisition was before 1984, i.e., before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.98 - Consequently, rejection on ground of limitation was unsustainable - Petitioners' names were included in the 2009 Master Eligibility List and many persons below them in seniority were appointed - Denying petitioners alone would be arbitrary and discriminatory - Taking stand contrary to its own earlier binding relaxation was impermissible - Petitioners were directed to submit required documents within stipulated time - Department to consider their within three months. (Para 12, 16)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Appointment - Extension of term of deputation - Petitioner challenged re-appointment of candidate as Executive Officer (EO) of Nagar Panchayat on deputation, despite State having previously made a conscious decision to turn down his extension proposal - Manner in which candidate was brought back indicated improper motives, noting there was no perceptible change in circumstances to warrant reversal of earlier high-level decision - No applications were invited and no due process was followed while re-appointing candidate, who was seemingly hand-picked - State failed to explain why he alone was chosen or whether consent from his parent department was secured - Re-appointment orders were passed for extraneous reasons in disregard of public interest and administrative exigency, hence were quashed. (Para 8, 9, 10, 11)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.306, S.498A - Abetment of suicide - Allegations that deceased, wife committed suicide due to harassment by accused, husband - Till death of deceased, there was no complaint of harassment, beating and illicit relationship - No mobile phone seized and Call Data Records collected - Allegation was that accused having illicit relationship with co-accused`s wife was without any materials - Close relatives and neighbours not deposed anything against accused for ill-treating his wife for having any illicit relationship with co-accused's wife - Both children of accused were grown up children but no enquiry conducted with them with regard to relationship between deceased and accused - Medical evidence establishing that deceased was under severe headache and stomach pain and she had unbearable pain which might be reason for her taking extreme step - Acquittal was proper. (Para 7,8)

(A) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (15 of 1946), S.10, S.8 (5) - Eviction - Ground wilful default in payment of rent - Suit premises originally belonged to third party (erstwhile landlord) under whom petitioner-tenant was inducted as tenant - Erstwhile landlord had sent legal notice stating that he had sold property to respondent-landlord and directed tenant to pay rents to new landlord - Even after receipt of said notice, tenant failed to pay rents to landlord - Tenant neither paid rent to landlord nor deposited same - Document on records showed that tenant had deliberately decided not to accept new owner as landlord and pay rent to him - Hence, order holding tenant wilfully defaulted in payment of rent and liable to be evicted was proper. (Para 7.2)

(A) Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (15 of 2003), S.8 - Provisional attachment order - Setting aside of - Challenge against - Enforcement Directorate, on basis of documents and investigation under PMLA provisionally attached subject flat of respondent on grounds that it was proceeds of crime - Respondent had entered into agreement to sell for purchase of flat along with Company-Vendor of flat - Plea of respondent that respondent was bona fide purchaser therefore, consideration passed under agreement to sell was not proceeds of crime - Even if respondent had entered into unregistered agreement to sell in respect of property in question, no title was passed on to him - Respondent alleged that he had paid almost entire sale consideration to vendor before even construction commenced - This would cause huge shadow of doubt of bona fides and genuineness of these transactions - Respondent did not have any title over flat and it was of vendor and not of respondent - Transactions between respondent and vendor were not bona fide - Transactions between respondent and vendor were not bona fide - There was intent by respondent to assist accused in circumventing pending legal actions by facilitating transactions with vendor, post filing of winding up petition - Setting aside attachment order was not proper. (Para 27, 33, 35, 36, 42, 46, 47)

(A) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (24 of 1961), S. 154 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules (1961), R.107 - Auction sale - Revision challenging auction proceedings - Condonation of delay - Revision under S. 154 was filed by petitioners after delay of more than 12 years - Petitioners claiming that they were unaware of the auction until November 2020 - However, Bank account extract showing that petitioners had acknowledged auction purchaser's deposit Dt.1.10.2009 - One petitioner had expressly admitted through letter Dt. 16.04.2015 that Bank auctioned mortgaged property and adjusted auction amount - Petitioners' plea of lack of knowledge was patently false and contradicted by their own documents - Statements made in writ petition and in condonation of delay application amounted to deliberate falsehood and suppression of material facts - Court declined to examine merits of auction validity under R. 107 - Divisional Joint Registrar's order refusing to condone delay upheld - Costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed. (Para 33, 34, 35, 42)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Increments - Claim for - Denial of - Appellant joined services with respondent - He was removed from service in 1986, but reinstated in service in 1992 - He claimed that he was entitled to 8, 16 and 24 years service increment - Assistant Registrar of Co-op Society stated on oath that period of removal from service of appellant was treated as on duty, no confidential report was written during this period due to which no report certificate was issued to appellant - Once appellant was reinstated with all consequential benefits, respondents could not deny benefit of ACPs - Further, as per instructions, 50% reports were to be considered as 'Good' and if ACR of certain period was not available then it is to be considered as 'Good' - Denial of benefit of ACPs was erroneous. (Para 14, 15, 16)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.31(7) - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.21, R.1 - Execution of Arbitral award - Objection to calculation sheet - Rejection of - Challenge against - Executing Court had rejected objection filed by award debtor and directed for payment of remaining amount - Plea of award debtor that Tribunal had specifically directed that simple interest be paid on awarded amounts till date of payment, but Executing Court had effectively modified award and converted simple interest into compound interest by accepting method of calculation of award holder - Operative part of award made clear that Arbitral Tribunal had not granted compound interest rather awarded composite interest - There was no indication of grant of any interest upon interest or compound interest on principal amount awarded by Arbitral Tribunal - Award had since attained finality - Now it was not open to award holder to claim either compound interest or post-award interest on aggregate of principal amount and pre-award interest by applying general principle of law - Calculation sheet of award holder was not prepared strictly in accordance with terms of arbitral award - Rejection of objection to calculation sheet was not proper. (Para 9, 11)

(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.31(7) - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.21, R.1 - Execution of arbitral award - Charging of interest on entire portion of principal amount - After deposit of 25% of awarded amount - Validity - Award debtor had deposited 25% of awarded amount which was withdrawn by award holder - Said withdrawal was allowed to be made only on stipulation that withdrawal would be subject to outcome of the main case - Person would be liable to pay interest even in respect of amount which has been paid and handed over to decree holder - There can be no liability to pay interest on amount that stands paid/withdrawn - Interest is payable only on amount that is not paid - Claim of award holder with regard to interest on entire principal amount was not valid in eye of law - Such interest ought to accrue exclusively on unpaid portion of principal amount - Matter was remitted to Executing Court for reconsideration of issue of interest under arbitral award. (Para 12, 14)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Dismissal from service - Reinstatement - Treating period from dismissal to reinstatement as period spent on duty - Prayer for - Respondent joined services of appellant and was appointed as driver on work charge basis - Thereafter, he was promoted as driver on regular basis -Criminal proceedings were initiated against respondent u/Ss. 279, 304-A of Penal Code - After his conviction in criminal trial, he preferred appeal - During pendency of appeal, respondent remained on bail - He could have attended duties even during pendency of appeal, however, competent authority opted to dismiss him from service despite pendency of appeal - Respondent was acquitted by Appellate Court - Once respondent had been acquitted in criminal proceedings, there was nothing to show that respondent was at fault - No departmental proceedings were initiated against respondent - Finding that respondent was entitled to treat period from dismissal to reinstatement as period spent on duty was proper. (Para 15, 16, 17)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 173 - Appeal against award - Quantum of compensation - Wife of deceased had preferred First Appeal challenging quantum of compensation as decided vide common award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as assailed by mother of deceased - Wife in First Appeal had made mother of deceased as proforma respondents - Vide order of even date Court had allowed First Appeal of wife detailing therein regarding every aspect of argument raised in present appeal - Therefore, adjudication of present appeal no longer survives - Compensation was not enhanced. (Para 9)

(A) Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act (25 of 1997), S.2(b), S.20 - Contempt petition - Bar of limitation - Order for regularization of daily-rated worker - Authority pleaded that contempt petition was time-barred as filed after gap of 5 years - Compliance filed by contemnors/authority, was not found to be in consonance with order passed by writ Court and they were directed to file fresh compliance - Instead of showing compliance, in its true spirit, contemnors had taken refuge under hyper technical ground of limitation - Since order sought to be implemented by way of contempt petition came to be passed by writ Court in exercise of power under Art.226 of Constitution, contemnors cannot take refuge under hyper technical ground of limitation particularly, when hundreds of similarly situated persons had been regularized - Single Judge rightly rejected plea of authority to dismiss contempt petition as time-barred. (Para 8, 9, 11, 12)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of charge-sheet - Compromise between parties - Charges of cheating and extortion - Applicant had were sought for compounding of offences on the basis of settlement arrived between parties - Considering that chances of conviction of accused were very bleak and in the interest of justice proceedings were liable to be quashed. (Para 10)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.483 - Bail - Prayer for - Offences under Ss. 64(1), 74, 78, 132, 351(2) and (3) of BNS - Allegations that accused had blackmailed victim for her nude pics and videos, which were recorded secretly without her consent when they were in relationship and he and his friends threatened me that they would throw acid on her and push, touch her on private part (breast) - Victim had lodged complaint to police on 12.04.2025, in which, compromise had taken place on 14.04.2025 - Investigation was completed and accused was in judicial custody - Facts demonstrated that his custodial interrogation was not required - Chances of commencement and conclusion of trial, against accused, in near future, were not so bright - No useful purpose would be served by keeping him, in judicial custody - Victim had refused to undergo medico legal examination, however, later on, she voluntarily expressed her intention to undergo medico legal examination - Refusal of Medical Examination by rape victim had raised negative inferences - Bail granted to accused. (Para 24, 26, 27)

(A) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act (23 of 1956), S. 307(5) - Illegal construction - Demolition of - Claim of respondents that they had merely carried out repair works and had not demolished original old construction, and had not raised any new construction - In a civil suit filed by respondents, respondent had made statement that he had not taken any building permission from Municipal Corporation - Once construction was raised without obtaining any building permission from Municipal Corporation, then it cannot be said that new construction raised by respondents was in accordance with law - Also, applicant was not a party to civil suit filed by respondents - Judgment passed in civil suit and judgment passed by appellate Court cannot be said to be a judgment in rem, and therefore, findings recorded by subordinate Courts below were not binding on applicant, and thus, they cannot be utilized for holding that construction raised by respondents was in accordance with law, specifically when respondents had refused to undergo scientific test of age of building - Thus, there was a prima facie evidence to show that existing building was a newly constructed building - Order of Trial Court rejecting application filed under S.307(5) was set aside - Directions were issued to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, to immediately seal building in question and demolish same. (Para 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Essential Commodities Act (10 of 1955), S. 3 - Cancellation of dealership agreement - Legality - Agreement to run retail petroleum outlet - Agreement cancelled on the ground of adulteration - Order of Single Judge quashing the termination order was by holding that there was no adulteration as the motor spirit range was found as provided under IS-2796:2008 - After inspection, samples were taken and on scrutiny, the petroleum was found to be adulterated by variation in the density beyond the prescribed limit - Even if one of the aspect of the definition of adulteration as provided under Clause 5.1.1 of the 'Guidelines, 2012' was found available, it would amount to adulteration - Adulteration being a critical irregularity Clause 8.2 of 'Guidelines, 2012', punitive action of termination of agreement was taken - Plea that action taken was disproportionate was not tenable as sale of adulterated product is a crime against the society and not only individual - Termination of agreement was proper. (Para 32,36,37,43,44)

(A) T. N. Urban Local Bodies Act (9 of 1999), S.128 - Encroachment on public place - Removal of - Challenge against - Plea of petitioners that no notice had been issued to them prior to passing order of removal of encroachment - State had stated that no notice was required to be given and it was for petitioner to have approached authorities with requisite documents establishing his title - It would suffice to permit petitioner to file response treating order as notice under S.128(1)(b) of Act - Direction issued against petitioners to appear before Director of Town and Country Planning , without anticipating any notice in this regard - State would supply copies of reports to petitioners in course of hearing and they should submit their replies and supporting documents in respect of title and orders should shall be passed in accordance with law. (Para 14, 15, 16)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.190 - Cognizance order - Legality - Offence under S.8 of POCSO Act, Ss.354A, 204, 214 of IPC - Allegation that Complainant-mother and her 17 yrs old minor daughter met accused, Ex-CM of Karnataka with a view to get justice for earlier sexual assault committed against minor and at that time, he took minor into a room, molested her, so complainant uploaded a video regarding incident in her Facebook account and co-accused got the video deleted - Trial Court had mentioned the allegations in brief and materials produced in the police report - Order taking cognizance was proper - However, considering old age of accused, his presence should not be insisted by trial Court, unless necessary. (Para 19, 21)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Dismissal from service - Back wages - Admittedly, husband of appellant did not perform any duty w.e.f. 09.06.2001 to 18.03.2004 - It was not because of respondents that husband of appellant could not perform his duties w.e.f. 2001 till date of his dismissal as representation submitted by deceased husband of appellant for cancellation of his transfer was rejected by respondents - Only relief which appellant and other dependents of deceased were held entitled to, was monetary benefits which was accepted by appellant - Respondents treated period from date of unauthorised absence till demise of husband of appellant, as period spent on duty but without wages on principle of 'No Work-No Pay', however, the period was considered for granting pensionary benefits - In view of such facts, appellant was not entitled to back wages - Directions issued to consider daughter of appellant for compassionate appointment if found eligible . (Para 11, 12)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.147 - Compensation - Liability of insurance company - Policy of pay and recover - Case of claimants that victim lost balance and fell into sewage drain from tractor - Policy indicating that vehicle owner had paid basic premium for third party risk and additional premium for driver and/or conductor and / or cleaner employed in connection with operation of insured vehicle - Since design of vehicle was single seated open vehicle that seat was for driver and coverage was only for driver -Tractor registered for agricultural purpose, carrying sewage was not within operation of vehicle - Accident was reported to police after 15 days - Tractor registered for agricultural purpose and not for commercial use - Terms of insurance policy and premium paid does not cover any person travelling in tractor, except driver - Held, there was violation of permit condition - Thus, order directing insurance company to pay and recover was set aside. (Para 27,29)

(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S.3 (1) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (32 of 2012), S.7, S.8, S.11 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.354, S.354(D), S.509, S.506-II - Outraging modesty - Allegation that accused stalked victim, outraged her modesty and threatened her to life - Victim specifically deposed that while she was returning home, accused caught her hand, asked why she does not involve in conversation with him and when she objected, accused extended threat of life to parents - Statement of victim was corroborated by lodging FIR on same day - No material had been extracted in cross-examination to discredit testimony of victim regarding incident and nature of offence committed by accused - Sufficient evidence to show that accused used criminal force on victim with sexual intent - Prosecution able to prove guilt of accused - Hence, order of conviction was proper. (Para 18)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.147 - Injury claim - Liability of insurer - Driver had driven motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against injured, as result, he sustained grievous injuries - Plea of insurance company that driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license at time of accident and respondents suppressed transfer of vehicle - On the date of accident, previous owner of offending vehicle continued to be registered owner of vehicle and ownership was transferred in favour of subsequent owner after accident - Inspection report showed previous owner as owner of vehicle and insurance policy was in his name - He was also mentioned as owner in Motor Vehicle Inspection report - Therefore, insurance Company could not contend that there was suppression of transfer by both owners - In Motor Vehicle Inspection report, details of driving license of offending vehicle were not mentioned and was stated as not applicable - Insurance company failed to take any steps to issue notice to owner or driver to produce driving license - Tribunal rightly held insurer to pay compensation. (Para 14, 15, 16)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Recruitment - Agriculture Co-ordinator - Counselling and certificate verification - Bihar Staff Selection Commission, while calling the petitioner for counselling, had expressly required production of original graduation marksheet and certificate, and disability certificate in Form-2 downloaded from the Commission's website - Petitioner, though appearing on the scheduled date, did not produce either the original graduation documents or the Form-2 disability certificate, graduation marksheet was submitted later and the Form-2 certificate was never produced - Conditions of counselling notice were mandatory and non-compliance with essential documentary requirements justified cancellation of candidature. (Para 15,16,17)

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138, S. 139, S. 118(a) - Cheque dishonour - Financial capacity of complainant - Cheques issued by accused towards repayment of alleged loan got dishonoured - Complainant admitted that her husband had also filed complaint for dishonour of cheque against accused - She stated that she found this fact subsequent to filing of complaint - It was impossible to believe that complainant would not have known about complaint filed by her husband against accused when both residing in same house - Advancement of loan by complainant to accused in these circumstances was doubtful - No reasonable person would have trusted another with money when other person had failed to return it - Admission made by complainant that she had no source of income would make her financial capacity to advance loan highly doubtful - Statement that her son was sending money to her was not acceptable as she failed to explain how money was sent by son to her - Financial capacity of complainant was doubtful - Acquittal was proper. (Para 13, 14, 22)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Compassionate appointment and payment of ex-gratia amount - Claim for - Petitioner claimed for appointment on the post of messenger (sandesh wahak) on compassionate ground due to death of his father who died in harness - Initially application for appointment on compassionate ground filed by petitioner was rejected on ground that scheme of compassionate appointment was withdrawn by Bank - Subsequently new scheme was introduced but the same was not applicable in case of employees whose death had occurred prior to 4.8.2005 - Petitioner stated that that there being a scheme for compassionate appointment of Bank at the time of death of his father in the year 2003, his application should have been considered and application for payment of the ex-gratia amount was also not considered - Authorities stated that application for compassionate appointment was filed by petitioner for the first time after nine years of death of his father - Due to delay in filing application petitioner had not made out a case for appointment on compassionate ground - Directions were issued to petitioner to supply required documents for payment of ex-gratia amount and to the authorities to pay arrears of family pension to petitioner. (Para 13, 14, 15)

(A) Post Office Act (6 of 1898), S.74 - Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules (2011), R.21 - Misconduct - Punishment of removal from service - Legality - Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Post Master stamped passbooks of account holders, but did not make respective entries in books of accounts maintained in post office, even though he had received amount from account holders - The punishment of removal from service was set aside by High Court on the ground that mere suspicion was not enough to punish respondent - However, the case was not of mere suspicion - Documents clearly established factum of embezzlement - It was matter of chance that embezzlement made by respondent came to notice of authorities and action was taken against him whereupon amount was deposited by respondent - There was no defect or error in conducting inquiry and respondent had admitted his guilt during the course of inquiry - Mere deposit of embezzled amount would not absolve employee of misconduct - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction of judicial review by going into merits of controversy - Setting aside of punishment by High Court was unjustified (Para 10, 11)

(A) Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987), S. 3(2), S. 4 - A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Service Rules (2002), R. 3 - Appointment - Validity - Petitioner challenged appointment of respondent as Commissioner, Endowments (Full Additional Charge), alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, and violated Art. 14, 21, and 26 of Constitution - Learned Single Judge held that no disqualification was made out under Act or Rules and that petition was proxy litigation - Writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is made contrary to statutory provisions or appointee lacks prescribed qualifications or suffers disqualification - Respondent, being in cadre of Additional Commissioner, was eligible to be placed in Full Additional Charge as Commissioner under Ss. 3(2) and 4 and R. 3 - No material produced to show any statutory disqualification - Petitioner failed to explain lawful source of documents annexed to writ petition, thereby lending credence to inference that petition was proxy litigation - Appointment of respondent as Commissioner, Endowments (Full Additional Charge), was proper. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 311 - Termination of service - For repeated acts of indiscipline and insubordination - Challenge against - Petitioner was Anganwari Centre employee and was repeatedly directed by employer through numerous office letters, notices and three formal show cause notices to shift Anganwari Centre from her home to another place - Petitioner not only thwarted compliance efforts but initially shifted center only to home of her real brother-in-law and subsequently attempted to justify her non-compliance based on a rent dispute with him - Affidavit by State further detailed instances where husband of petitioner actively misbehaved with officers in attempts to block the shifting, leading to registration of FIRs against the couple - It was not for petitioner, as an employee, to sit over or independently decide against direction of Competent Authority and her duty was simply to abide by them - Petitioner, fully conscious of directions, repeatedly disobeyed and defied orders of her superiors, order of termination of service was proper. (Para 4)

(A) Constitution of India, Sch.10 Para.2, Art. 226 - W. B. Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules (1986), R. 6 - W. B. Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules (1986), R. 8 - Disqualification - From Membership of State Legislative Assembly - Respondent was elected as Member of State Legislative Assembly on BJP ticket - Petitioner filed application before him that another respondent (R-2) had defected from BJP - Under Tenth Schedule of Constitution of India, respondent has been empowered to decide petition for disqualification - Standard of proof in disqualification proceedings governed by the Tenth Schedule and the Rules of 1986 is preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt as no criminal liability is involved - Averments and assertions relating to disqualification of R-2, in petition for disqualification, were not denied by him - Petitioner had produced electronic evidence, transcript of press conference and other materials - Material allegations as against R-2 remained uncontroverted - Disqualification petition was allowed. (Para 26, 47, 48, 51, 54, 57, 65)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Look out Circular - Removal of - Petitioner is Indian citizen by birth and he acquired Australian citizenship by holding valid Overseas Citizen of India card - Criminal case was registered against petitioner for delay in repayment of term loan amount sanctioned by bank in India - Later, Look Out Circular was issued against petitioner by investigating agency - Petitioner sought for removal Look Out Circular issued against petitioner, claiming that it infringed upon his right to travel abroad - Undertaking given by petitioner that he would not be reason for any delay and he would appear before trial Court personally or in exigency he would appear through virtual mode for charge framing and that he woulf file affidavit giving his travel itinerary - Petitioner was permitted to travel to Australia for period of 30 days - Look Out Circular stand suspended during period when petitioner leaves India. (Para 5, 7)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Dismissal from service - Post of Aanganwadi Sahayika / Mini Aanganwadi Karyakarta - Petitioner was appointed as Aanganwadi Sahayika / Mini Aanganwadi Karyakarta and complaint was raised against said appointment on ground that petitioner did not possess minimum qualification of Class V for appointment on the post - State Govt. through its circular stated that in case of non-availability of candidate fulfilling minimum educational qualification of Class V, candidate having lesser qualification can also be appointed - Since no other candidate was available, petitioner having Class IV educational qualification was appointed - At the time when petitioner was appointed, she was eligible for appointment as per Govt. instructions and termination of her services only to meet out certain complaints made on CM Helpline cannot be said to be justified - Dismissal order was to be set aside. (Para 10, 11, 13)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3, S. 8, S. 45 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Testimony of eye-witnesses - Corroborative medical evidence - Accused persons assaulted victim by sharp cutting weapon, lathi and rod with an intention to kill him, resulting in grievous injuries and he died while he was unconscious and being treated - Place, date and time of occurrence were conclusively established by consistent depositions of three eye-witnesses - Witnesses also corroborated mode and manner of occurrence, detailing how altercation began, initial blow was inflicted and subsequent arrival of all accused armed with an axe, lathi and danda - Motive of crime was eve-teasing sister of victim and same was also established beyond reasonable doubt by consistent testimony of eyewitnesses - Medical evidence noted 14 serious antemortem injuries, including fractures and Intracranial hemorrhage caused by sharp-cutting and hard/blunt substances - This fully corroborated ocular testimony without any irreconcilable conflict - Evidence of all key prosecution witnesses was cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable - Guilt of accused stood proved beyond all reasonable doubt - Conviction was proper. (Para 27 to 33, 39)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 14 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 149 - Unlawful assembly - Common intention - In cases where a large number of accused form unlawful assembly and attack victim, it is not necessary for every member to inflict a fatal or even any injury to be held guilty - Evidence on record established prime complicity of main accused and his two sons-appellants in occurrence - Consistent prosecution testimony proved that all accused persons, were members of unlawful assembly and gave effect to occurrence while acting in prosecution of common object of assembly - They shared illegal purpose of assaulting victim together using dangerous weapons like lathi, danda, iron rod, axe and baat - Members of unlawful assembly, were definitely guilty and their conviction was proper. (Para 34, 35)

(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Non-examination of IO - Prosecution case was fatally flawed due to non-examination of Investigating Officer (IO) and non-seizure of blood-stained mud or clothes - However, non-examination of IO was not fatal to prosecution case, especially when no prejudice has been caused to accused and no material contradictions were brought out - Credibility of prosecution witnesses remained unshaken - Non-seizure of blood-stained mud/clothes was of no consequence when there is overwhelming evidence from eyewitnesses - Eye-witnesses had fully supported occurrence in their evidence and their **ocular testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence - Non-seizure of physical evidence and non-examintaioon of IO was of no relevance. (Para 36)

(D) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 134 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Testimony of chance witness - Reliability - As per accused, three key eyewitnesses were either mere "chance witnesses" - Witnesses were unrelated and independent witnesses - Testimony of chance witnesses was not to be viewed with suspicion and can be relied upon, provided they offer a convincing explanation for their presence at scene - All three eyewitnesses had suitably provided convincing explanations, as they were local resident of area, owned shop at the location - Quality of witness will be preferred over quantity of witnesses - Testimony of the eyewitnesses was fit to be relied upon. (Para 37)

(E) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 3 - Murder - Non-mentioning of accused in FIR - Name of accused was initially not mentioned in FIR and was introduced subsequently - FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but can only be used to corroborate or contradict its maker - Informant was not eyewitness and had merely narrated incident as told to him by others - Crucially, three key eyewitnesses had consistently named accused as having complicity in assault that resulted in death of victim -Ocular testimony was cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable - Conviction was proper. (Para 38)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 311 - Dismissal from service - Misconduct of doubtful integrity - Challenge against - Punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on petitioner-security guard, for escape of a prisoner from hospital, while he was on duty - Petitioner explained his absence by stating he was compelled by hospital staff to collect blood report of prisoner from laboratory, an act of negligence that occurred due to failure of co-incumbent, to resume his scheduled duty - Revisional Authority had subsequently modified punishment of co-incumbent from dismissal to a stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect -They however failed to reconsider punishment of petitioner despite unblemished service record since 2006 and fact that co-incumbent failed to join duty, that increased responsibility of petitioner - Order of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate, hence liable to be quashed. (Para 10 to 16)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 - Claim petition - Dismissal of - Ground that there was collusion inter-se between claimants and alleged driver of truck - Evidence on record clearly indicate that facts were distorted from time to time on account of fact that driver of truck was close relative of deceased - In such circumstances, it is natural human conduct that claimants wanted to save driver of truck from culpability of accident, being their relative - As such, if FIR has not been registered against driver of truck, it cannot be a ground to non-suit claimants as none of claimants was eyewitness of accident - Offending truck was involved in accident and deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver - The only inference which can be drawn is that driver as well as owner tried to twist the facts to avoid liability of the accident - Observations of Tribunal that there was collusion inter se claimants and driver was not acceptable - Dismissal of claim petition was erroneous. (Para 10, 11, 12)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Compensation - Death claim - Deceased aged about 46 years - Multiplier applied - Amount awarded towards future prospects - 1/4th of income was deducted towards personal expenses - Amount awarded towards loss of dependency - Sum awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium - Claimants entitled to compensation along with interest from date of filing claim petition. (Para 13, 14.1, 15)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.226 - Reduction of pay - Imposition of penalty - Challenge against - Petitioner, a Senior Manager, challenged disciplinary and appellate orders imposing penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect - He was charged with irregularities in procurement specifically, splitting tenders below Rs. 2 lakhs to avoid e-procurement and inviting manual tenders in violation of company guidelines - In departmental enquiry, Enquiry Officer exonerated him of both charges, holding that as a non-technical officer he was not responsible for tender bifurcation and no misconduct was proved - However, Disciplinary Authority, after issuing a detailed notice specifying reasons for disagreement with enquiry report and giving petitioner opportunity to reply, concluded that he had deviated from procurement guidelines and imposed penalty - Disciplinary Authority was competent to differ from enquiry findings if reasons were recorded and natural justice was observed - Finding no procedural irregularity, violation of principles of natural justice, or perversity in decision-making process, imposition of penalty of reduction of pay was held proper by High Court observing that judicial review does not extend to substituting its own conclusions in departmental matters. AIR 2020 SC 1878-Followed (Para 6-10, 12, 13)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.21, R.32 - Execution of decree - Dismissal of application - Application under O.21, R.32 was filed with allegations that respondents had violated decree and started excavation of land for raising construction - Except for self-serving statement of one of petitioner no other evidence was led to prove allegations by petitioners - For want of corroboration to version of petitioner, Executing Court found evidence insufficient to indict respondents - Hence, order dismissing application was proper. (Para 6)

(A) Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act (40 of 1980), S.19 - Compassionate appointment - Prayer for grant of - Father of petitioner who was permanent employee while working as Clerk died in harness - There was some discrepancy in date of birth of father of petitioner - Father of petitioner died during enquiry - No departmental proceeding was initiated against father of petitioner during his lifetime - It was not case of Bank that father of petitioner was not qualified to hold post on which he was working at time of his death or that he had obtained his appointment on basis of forged and fabricated documents - In view of such facts, Bank was directed to decide application for compassionate appointment of petitioner. (Para 10, 11, 12)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), S.24 - Transfer of case - Application for - Petitioner wife sought transfer of matrimonial case from Sub-Court, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District to file of Family Court, Karur, Karur District - Fact that petitioner being lady would be facing difficulty to travel about more than 120 kms up and down to attend all Court hearings where matrimonial suit is pending - Also, petitioner would be facing financial constraint to meet travel and incidental expenses - Application was allowed. (Para 7)

(A) Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), S. 33(2(b) - Dismissal from service - Approval of order - Rejection of - Record showed that order of dismissal was passed, while approval petition was filed by Management after lapse of eight years and six months from date of dismissal - Management failed to comply with mandatory prerequisites for obtaining approval u/S. 33(2)(b) - Such unexplained and prolonged delay had undoubtedly prejudiced rights of workman, who remained under constant state of uncertainty regarding his employment status and was subjected to undue mental agony and hardship - Order rejecting prayer for approval was not liable to be interfered with. (Para 7, 9)

(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S.13(1)(i-a) - Divorce petition - On ground of cruelty by husband - Wife had raised grounds of cruelty by demanding dowry, leading adulterous life, retaining her educational certificate by husband - No independent witnesses had been examined to establish that husband and his family members demanded dowry and only one week they resided as husband and wife - Wife did not lodge any criminal complaint against husband and his family members in this regard - Wife had not examined either her parents or relatives to substantiate allegation of demand of dowry - She failed to examine any independent witness to substantiate allegation of adultery - She had not lodged any further complaint regarding retaining of her remaining belongings by husband - She had admitted that husband had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights and same was allowed - Wife had deliberately suppressed this fact in her pleading - Allegations levelled against husband were not proved - Mere allegation without proof could not form basis for granting decree of divorce - Trial Court had rightly dismissed petition. (Para 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Accused had placed orders with complainant-Company for purchase of some goods and same were supplied under cover of invoices to accused - In discharge of liability, cheque was issued by accused - When cheque presented with Bankers, it was returned for reason "Payment stopped by Drawer" - Plea of accused that liability was discharged by way of bank guarantee, therefore he had given stop payment notice - Bank Guarantee payments made by demand drafts and statement of account produced confirmed liability attached to cheque was discharged - Accused had probablized his defence by examining himself and Bank Manager - Complainant had failed to establish that it had any existing liability to pay cheque amount and failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt - Acquittal of accused was proper. (Para 9, 10, 11)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.483 - Bail - Prayer for grant of - Offences under Ss.364-A, 420, 506, 120-B, 109 and 412 IPC, and S.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 - FIR alleges the kidnapping of 10-year-old boy by three men in a Wagon-R, from which the child was safely recovered the next day - Both accused persons had been in custody since 2022, having served over three years each - The trial was ongoing, with numerous prosecution witnesses yet to be examined - Considering the recovery of the child without harm, the lengthy incarceration already undergone, and that one co-accused had already been granted bail, conditional bail was granted. (Para 10-14)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 - Dismissal of claim petition - On ground that accident did not take place by offending vehicle/ bus - However, it was injured's case that registration number of offending bus was incorrectly mentioned in claim petition which was subsequently corrected - Injured in his supplementary statement stated that as he was suffering from pain and he was not able to read registration number of offending bus and had incorrectly narrated number - However, supplementary statement made by injured was rendered negatory as even in his affidavit of evidence number of offending vehicle was registration number before correction - Also, it was found that statement made by injured/eyewitness in first instance after accident based on which FIR was registered and thereafter claim petition was instituted - Furthermore, eyewitness gave different version of events resulting in acquittal of driver of offending vehicle in criminal case - It is settled law that where there was contradiction in statements of material witnesses, and as result of which offending driver had been acquitted in criminal trial, claimants were held not entitled to compensation - Dismissal of claim petition was justified. (Para 10, 12, 13, 15, 16)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.41, R.27 - Additional evidence - Production of - There must be a valid reason for not submitting such evidence at the trial stage - Further, evidence must be relevant and material for deciding the rights of the parties to the lis. (Para 2)

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 34, S. 32 - Arbitral award - Setting aside of - Interim order - Interlocutory assessment made by Arbitral Tribunal and decision not to non-suit party was taken - Arbitral Tribunal has made it clear that contentions raised by petitioner were mixed questions of fact and law and Arbitral Tribunal would need to examine evidence and determine admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of such evidence sought to be presented - Multiple nuances were involved and all of would need a detailed examination - Arbitral Tribunal has taken a decision that it would examine matter at a later stage in course of a final determination that it would make as and when it adjudicates proceedings in manner that it chooses to conduct - Prima facie view of Arbitral Tribunal was validly made as an interlocutory assessment, and decision not to non-suit respondent was not a final adjudication - Even if negative conclusion were to be treated as a final adjudication on issue, view expressed in order was eminently plausible view that calls for no intervention - No case was made out for interference with order, which was not an arbitral award inasmuch as it was not a final adjudication of any issue which would lead to termination of arbitral proceedings on such issue - Invocation of S.34 was misconceived - Arbitral petition under S. 34 was dismissed. (Para 36, 39, 48, 49)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Compensation - Enhancement - Injury claim - Injured claimant aged 39 at time of accident, sustained severe injuries including a large scalp laceration and multiple abrasions, requiring a five-day hospital stay - Tribunal had inadequately assessed compensation for medical expenses, special diet, transportation, and pain and suffering - To ensure fair adjudication, compensation was enhanced by an additional Rs. 50,000/-, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization. (Para 9-14)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S. 166 - Award of compensation - Challenge by Insurance Company - Ground that under a criminal conspiracy claimant in collusion with owner and driver of offending vehicle by manufacturing a false story of accident had obtained compensation - Evidence and materials on record raise serious doubt on claim case against offending vehicle in which common driver was shown to be involved - There emerges prima facie material of an unscrupulous litigant, and witnesses had conspired to fabricate a false and fraudulent claim for compensation before a Court of law - Award of compensation was set aside - Matter was remanded to Tribunal so as to decide case afresh after hearing parties and affording sufficient opportunity to lead evidence if any. (Para 17, 18)

(A) Punjab Police Rules (1934), R.12.18 - Police Act (5 of 1861), S.7 - Appointment - Rejection of candidature - Post of Male Constable (General Duty) - Petitioner's candidature was rejected on ground that he was implicated for committing offence of road accident - As per clause (b) of R.12.18, where charges have been framed against candidate for offence(s) involving moral turpitude or which is punishable for imprisonment of three years or more, he shall not be considered for appointment - Maximum punishment prescribed for committing alleged offence by petitioner was less than three years - His case was covered under Clause (b) of R.12.18 - Also, petitioner truly made disclosure of pending FIR in verification form and later he was acquitted by Trial Court - Therefore, Director General of Police was directed to reconsider case of petitioner as per law. (Para 12, 14, 15)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.69, S.71 - Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.12 - Suit for specific performance - Original owner of suit property had executed sale deed in favour of defendant for sale consideration - He also entered into reconveyance deed with defendant on same day itself on condition that defendant should receive same amount of consideration from him within 10 years from date of agreement - However, after 10 years, original owner was unable to make payment - But he had obtained money as advance from plaintiff and made over agreement to plaintiff - Defendant had refused to receive agreement amount from plaintiff and execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff - Attesting witness of reconveyance deed did not support plaintiff's case - No other evidence adduced by plaintiff to his substantiate claim - Execution of reconveyance deed had not been proved - Once execution of reconveyance deed remained unproved, other issues raised need not be considered - Dismissal of suit was proper. (Para 16, 17, 18)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.307 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 250 - Discharge - Application for - On ground that one injury sustained by injured was neither deep wound nor dangerous to life and second wound was also sharp incised wound and without treatment no chance of death and wounds were not on vital part of body - For offence u/S. 307 of Penal Code, presence of injury is not sine qua non - Nature of injuries is not decisive factor to determine offence punishable u/S. 307 of Penal Code - As per injured, accused had extended threat to kill, thereafter, assaulted him by knife targeting neck - Assault was intercepted with left arm by him which sustained two incised wounds and his MLC mentions that there was continuous bleeding from wound and there was possibility of cut to deep vessel and referred to Hospital - Accused was not entitled to discharge. (Para 13, 14, 16, 17)

(A) H. P. Urban Rent Control Act (25 of 1987), S. 14 - Eviction - Ground of raising unauthorised construction - Acquisition took place in 1989 and thereafter it was de-acquisitioned in 1991 - Even otherwise after de-acquisition of land, status of parties including owners/landlords and tenants was to be maintained status quo ante as it was existing prior to acquisition - Plea of petitioners that there was no relationship of landlords and tenant between parties was not tenable - There was a single storeyed structure in occupation of tenant - Technical report established that value and utility of demised premises was impaired by raising unauthorised construction and said construction was not only without permission of Municipal Corporation, but also dangerous for existing single storey structure whereupon two storeys were constructed without getting map and plan sanctioned and strengthening foundation of single storey structure - There was arrears of rent to be paid by tenants - Eviction was proper and tenants were liable to pay use and occupation charges till 30.4.2023 as determined @ 70,000/- p.m. till vacation of demised premises. (Para 23, 24, 25, 46, 50, 52, 53)

(A) Assam Excise Rules (1945), R.191 - Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act (1 of 1910), S.28, S.36 - Cancellation of NOC - On ground of objections from local bodies - Petitioner held bar license after meeting all statutory requirements, including obtaining of an NOC and subsequently was cancelled - Petitioner stated that cancellation of NOC had resulted in disruption of his business operation and has caused financial losses - Though NOC was initially issued, however, due to serious objections raised by residents complaint was placed before Annual General Dorbar of locality, which took the decision to revoke NOC granted to petitioner - In recall of NOC, petitioner was not afforded any opportunity - Trade in liquor is not an enforceable fundamental, or absolute right and the right to trade is considered a privilege granted by the State - Directions were issued to authorities to re-visit the cancellation of the NOC especially with regard to the opinion of the residents. (Para 11, 12, 13)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 309 - Bihar Civil Courts Officers and Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer and Other Service Conditions) Rules (2022), R. 6A (5) - Compassionate appointment - Denial of - Father of petitioner died on 11.8.2012 - Application on behalf of son of employee came to be filed on 5.08.2019 which was in clear violation of R. 6A(v) - Even if case of petitioner not covered under R. 6A(v), object of appointment on compassionate ground is to enable family to tide over sudden financial crises which had arisen as result of death of sole bread earner - Thus, on ground of delay also, irrespective of provisions of Rule of 2022, petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment - Denial was proper. (Para 7, 8)

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Compensation - Enhancement of - Deceased was survived by his wife and three children - Plea that income of deceased was taken on lower side in spite of submitting documentary evidence - Claimant claimed that deceased was earning Rs. 15, 000/- p.m. and also submitted salary slip - In view of evidence placed on record, income of deceased would have to be taken @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. at the time of accident - No evidence produced to show that deceased was paying any tax, so there was no question of deduction from his annual income towards payment of tax - 40% amount would be added towards future prospects - Considering there were 4 dependents 25% of his annual income had been deducted towards personal living expense - Also deceases was aged 30 years multiplier of 17 would be applicable - Claimants were entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Estate - Claimant wife was entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium - Children's were entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium and Rs 15, 000 towards funeral expenses - Compensation was enhanced accordingly . (Para 24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S.528 - Quashing of Look Out Circular - FIR was registered against accused under Ss.420, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC - Charge-sheet had already been filed before competent court - Allegations against accused pertained to forgery and cheating involving substantial monetary transaction of Rs.95,00,000/- - Investigating agency had placed material on record indicating that accused had substantial financial dealings abroad and that there existed reasonable apprehension that he may leave country to avoid ongoing proceedings - Satisfaction recorded by competent authority before issuance of LOC could not be said to be perverse or illegal - LOC issued against accused was proper. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 456 - Lurking house trespass - Appeal against acquittal - Allegation that accused entered house of complainant and locked room from inside, and despite efforts by family members to open door, he refused to do so - It was not revealed from evidence on record that for what offence or for what motive or intention, accused had entered into house of complainant - There was material variation, contradictions, omissions in Statement of witnesses as to identity of person entered into house of complainant - Acquittal was proper. (Para 11)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Dismissal from service - Direction for medical examination of petitioner - Challenge against - Petitioner was dismissed from service as he was suffering from colour blindness disease - Petitioner approached writ court against order of dismissal - Writ court had directed to conduct medical test of petitioner only in respect of eye medical examination and he had deposited requisite amount - As per report of AIIMS, petitioner was found suffering from Red-green colour deficiency in both eyes and on basis of same, he was held ineligible - Petitioner on one hand challenged writ court order and on other hand deposited amount for medical examination and when he has found ineligible due to colour blindness, he chose to file appeal against order of writ court - Respondents had not played any kind of misrepresentation or fraud on their part - In view of such facts, dismissal from service was proper. (Para 9, 11, 13)

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963), S. 5 - Condonation of delay - Application for - Delay of 341 days caused in preferring review petition due to non existence of document relied upon in impugned order - An examination of review application was necessary in view of submissions and facts that were put before Court - Thus, delay of 341 days was condoned. (Para 5, 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Scope - PIL can only be entertained at instance of a bonafide litigant and cannot be used by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievance as a PIL. (Para 33)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - - When to be allowed - Guidelines given.

(C) Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules (2010), R. 4 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Illegal disbursement of MLA funds - Petitioner had filed petition as pro bono publico claiming that respondent had indulged in large-scale illegal disbursement of MLA funds - Petitioner though claimed to had filed petition in public interest, but he had not disclosed and had deliberately withheld his complete credentials and interest as was mandatorily required under R. 4 of Rules of 2010 - Petitioner failed to disclose criminal case that was pending against him at time of filing of petition - Mere fact that he was acquitted later on was of no consequence - Petitioner wanted to settle his political score by filing petition as he was political rival of respondent - Petition cannot be said to be a bona fide, rather same was mischievous and amounted to gross abuse of process of Court - Petitioner lacked locus standi being political rival of respondent and by filing petition had shown his oblique motive - Petitioner was only pretending to act in name of Pro Bono Publico, though he had no interest of public to protect - Petitioner had abused inherent jurisdiction of Court by initiating a proxy litigation under guise of public interest, while harbouring undisclosed private motives - Writ petition was not maintainable as same was mischievous and had resulted in wastage of precious time of Court - Writ Petition, being founded on suppression, falsehood, and mala fide intent, was dismissed with exemplary costs. (Para 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 415 - Appeal against conviction - Benefit of doubt - Conviction for recovery of a firearm and ammunition - Non-examination of one seizure list witness was not significant because other prosecution witnesses consistently supported case regarding recovery of firearm and ammunition - There was no contradiction or inconsistency in substantive evidence provided by prosecution witnesses that would render conviction order invalid - Accused had failed to make out a case for setting aside conviction - However, taking a humanitarian view and considering fact that accused had already suffered incarceration for a period of about 18 months out of a total sentence of two years, total sentence was altered to period already undergone. (Para 8, 9)

(A) Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules (1980), R.8 - Delhi Police Act (34 of 1978), S.147 - Dismissal from service - Legality - Allegations that delinquents, police constables, present on spot, apprehended a truck and demanded illegal gratification for releasing it - Enquiry officer relied upon statements of witnesses as well as police officials who collectively corroborated sequence of events - Contradictions in statements of witnesses regarding location of arrest or person handing over alleged bribe were minor discrepancies and cannot form basis for discarding entire evidence in disciplinary proceedings, which has to be decided on standard of balance of probabilities - Further, enquiry was conducted by competent officer, in compliance with applicable rules, and delinquents were afforded full opportunity of hearing and charges against delinquents were duly proved - There was no procedural irregularity, illegality, or perversity in findings of disciplinary or appellate authorities - Considering gravity of misconduct, dismissal from service was justified. (Para 42, 43, 44, 48, 49)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 304AA [ Inserted Vide Himachal Pradesh Act 19 of 1997], S. 304A, S. 279 - Causing death due to rash and negligent driving or causing death by driving in state of intoixication - Testimony of injured - Corroboration - Ambulance driven by accused allegedly in intoixicated state fell in gorge causing death of victim and injury to other - Accused was driver of truck, as confirmed by testimony of owner and own statement of acused before police - Alcohol quantity in blood of accused was 21.68 mg%, which was less than the 30 mg% limit set by law - It was impermissible to punish a person u/S. 304AA of IPC for aggravated negligence due to intoxication while simultaneously exonerating them u/S. 185 of MV Act - Based on admitted fall of vehicle into a gorge and subsequent death, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable, shifting burden of explanation to accused - Explanation by accused that victim was crushed while placing a stone under rear tyre of a forward-moving truck, was found to be illogical and contradicted by mechanical inspection report - Only inference was that death of victim was due to negligence of accused - Conviction of accused altered from S. 304AA of IPC to S. 304A of the IPC. (Para 16, 17, 18, 25, 28 to 32)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 386 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 304A - Causing death due to rash and negligent driving - Sentence - Modification - Accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for offence of rash and negligent driving and seven years with fine for cauusing death due to driving in state of intioxication - Conviction of accused was however alrereed to causing death due to negligence, , which is punishable with a maximum sentence of two years - Considering fact that a young life was lost, accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 18 months and pay a fine. (Para 33)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 227 - Discharge - Dismissal of application - There was specific allegation that accused assaulted on head of informant's son by means of iron rod as result of which he sustained head injury - Accused persons and other had abused informant and took her caste name and also thrashed her on ground - Accused persons snatched Mangalsutra and earrings from informant and also tore her clothes - From perusal of FIR itself, it was evident that accused persons and other were present on place of occurrence and hence, it cannot be said that alleged occurrence was not taken place in public view - On consideration of charge, court has to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against accused or not - Court is not expected to go deep into probative value of material on record - Dismissal of application for discharge was proper. (Para 7)

(A) Commercial Courts Act (4 of 2016), S.13(1A) - Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.7, R.11 , S.2(2) - Rejection of plaint - Appeal u/S 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act - Maintainability - Order rejecting plaint under O.7, R.11 of CPC amounts to a "decree" within the meaning of S.2(2) of CPC as it decides the lis finally - A decree passed by a Commercial Court at the level of a District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court would ordinarily be appealable before High Court under S.13(1A) of CCA - Proviso to S.13(1A) of CCA merely restricts appeals against interlocutory orders to those specifically enumerated under O.43 of CPC - Proviso cannot be invoked to curtail or whittle down the scope of main provision , where language of the main provision is plain and unambiguous - Appeal was maintainable (Para 14, 15, 17, 21)

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3, S. 45 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Testimony of child witness - Corroborative medical evidence - Allegation that during night, accused persons attacked house of informant, assaulted her mother with sharp cutting weapons and caused her death - Prosecution case rested primarily on ocular evidence of two minor children - Explanation provided for delay in lodging FIR, due to informant needing to ascertain facts from locals and see dead body was acceptable - However unexplained three-day delay in sending the FIR to jurisdictional court was unacceptable - There was previous enmity between parties - While testimony of child witness is admissible, it must be free from blemishes and consistent - Testimony of child witnesses produced by prosecution failed to meet such standard, as their testimonies were contradictory regarding use of guns and identity of the person who fired gun-shots - Prosecution case also suffered from gross investigative lacunae, including omission of gunshot injury in FIR, failure to obtain a ballistic report and non-recovery of any bullet or cartridge - This resulted in ocular evidence and medical evidence not being supportive of each other - Testimony of the child witnesses lacked essential corroboration and were unreliable - Accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. (Para 31 to 35)