Bail – Murder Case – Conspiracy – Accused Not Present at Scene of Crime – Petitioner (Accused No.11) alleged to have only intimated the movement of the deceased to principal accused – No overt act of assault attributed to him – Petitioner not present at the place of occurrence – Role limited to prior intimation – Held: Case distinguishable from main assailants and comparable to co-accused granted bail [Paras 7–9].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused Nos.8 and 9, who were present at the spot but not armed and had not assaulted the deceased, already granted bail – Petitioner’s role held to be similar or lesser in gravity – Ground of parity applicable – Bail cannot be denied when similarly placed co-accused are enlarged on bail [Para 9].

Bail – Prolonged Custody – Delay in Trial – Petitioner in judicial custody since 28.07.2021 (over 4½ years) – Charge sheet cites 111 witnesses – Only some witnesses including major eye-witnesses examined – About 80 witnesses yet to be examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Continued incarceration held unjustified [Paras 10–12].

Bail – Suppression of Earlier Bail Petition – Effect – Though petitioner had earlier bail petitions dismissed, subsequent circumstances including long incarceration and delay in trial constitute change in circumstances – Suppression alone not sufficient to deny bail when liberty under Article 21 is implicated [Paras 4, 6, 13].

Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Prosecution failing to secure witnesses on scheduled dates – Adjournments granted for want of witnesses – Prolonged trial infringes right to personal liberty – Bail granted without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 10–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Principles laid down in Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268 applied – Long incarceration and delayed trial justify grant of bail [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions including execution of bond, non-tampering of witnesses, regular appearance before trial court, and non-involvement in further offences.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Approved Resolution Plan – Clean Slate Principle – Extinguishment of Claims – Industrial Disputes Act Proceedings – Held: All workmen claims not forming part of Resolution Plan stand extinguished – Resolution Plan approved by NCLT under Section 31 – No provision made for reinstatement, back wages or service benefits of respondent-employees – Employees neither included in list of existing manpower nor had lodged claims before Resolution Professional – Held: After approval of Resolution Plan, no proceedings can be continued or initiated in respect of claims not forming part of the Plan – Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed further [Paras 15–18].

IBC v. Industrial Disputes Act – Section 238 IBC – Overriding Effect – In case of inconsistency between IBC and Industrial Disputes Act, provisions of IBC to prevail – Continuation of Section 33-A proceedings post-approval of Resolution Plan would defeat objectives of IBC – Tribunal erred in adjudicating merits after resolution approval [Paras 9, 15–16].

Section 32A IBC – Immunity to Successful Resolution Applicant – Change in Management – Resolution Plan resulted in complete change of control and management – Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be saddled with liabilities arising from acts of erstwhile management or CIRP period unless expressly provided in Resolution Plan – Protection under Section 32A attracted [Paras 9, 10, 16].

Moratorium under Section 14 IBC – Lifting of Moratorium – No Revival of Extinguished Claims – Lifting of moratorium after approval of Resolution Plan does not revive claims which stand extinguished – Moratorium intended to ensure smooth CIRP, not to preserve claims beyond Resolution Plan [Paras 15–18].

Reinstatement Claims – Workmen – Not Maintainable Post-Resolution Plan – Even claim for reinstatement without back wages cannot survive once Resolution Plan approved and claim not recognised therein – Industrial Tribunal’s view that reinstatement claim was tenable held erroneous [Paras 16–18].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Decisions – Reliance placed on Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Electrosteel Steel Ltd. v. Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Successful Resolution Applicant must not face undecided or residual claims after approval of Resolution Plan [Para 15].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned orders passed by Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court quashed and set aside – Pending industrial dispute and complaint proceedings held terminated – Rule made absolute.

Motor Vehicles Act – Claims Tribunal Procedure – Deletion of Party – Prematurity – Order Quashed – Claimants challenged MACT order deleting insurer (Respondent No.2) at preliminary stage on ground that policy covered only own damage – Tribunal passed order before completion of pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence – Held: MACT cannot decide insurer’s liability piecemeal without full inquiry as mandated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Impugned order contrary to statutory scheme and Rules – Deletion set aside [Paras 3–4, 15, 18].

Claims Tribunal – Applicability of CPC – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Applicable – Goa Motor Vehicles Rules specify limited application of CPC provisions to MACT proceedings – Order I Rule 10 CPC not extended to Tribunal under Rule 300 – Tribunal lacks power to drop or implead parties based on preliminary examination without inquiry – Pleas regarding liability must be adjudicated after evidence [Paras 14–15].

Insurance Liability – Determination Requires Evidence – Contract of Insurance – Dispute whether vehicle was insured only for own damage or also for third party risk – Existence of multiple insurers pleaded – Held: Determination of inter se liability of insurers depends on proof of insurance contracts and evidence – Such issues cannot be decided at threshold [Paras 5, 7, 15, 18].

Summary Procedure – Not Piecemeal Adjudication – Though MACT follows summary procedure, it must decide all issues together in one inquiry – Reliance placed on Bimlesh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Tribunal erred in deciding maintainability and liability in isolation – Inquiry must culminate in a comprehensive award [Paras 16, 18].

Deletion of Party – Demurrer Principle – Premature Exercise of Power – Plea that claim discloses no cause of action against insurer must be tested assuming pleadings to be true – Following Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Manish Kumar – Deletion at preliminary stage before evidence held impermissible [Paras 17–18].

Consequential Directions – Recasting of Issues and Fresh Inquiry – Respondent No.5 later filed written statement during pendency of writ petition – Issues framed in absence of Respondent No.2 held unsustainable – Tribunal directed to recast issues after restoring Respondent No.2 and proceed with evidence and final award [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 10.08.2023 deleting Respondent No.2 quashed and set aside – MACT directed to recast issues after completion of pleadings and decide claim petition after recording evidence of all parties – Rule made absolute [Para 20].

Civil Law - Court Fees – Cancellation of Document – Declaratory Relief – Executant of Document – Plaintiff, who executed a deed of guarantee for ₹30 crores, sought declaration that the guarantee was void ab initio and impossible of performance – Though relief couched as declaration, substance of relief amounted to cancellation of the guarantee deed – Held: When executant seeks to avoid or nullify a document executed by him, suit falls under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and not under Section 25 [Paras 7–9, 15, 19].

Valuation of Suit – Substance Over Form – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Suit valued at ₹25,01,000/- despite guarantee value being ₹30 crores – Court held that valuation must be based on value of subject document sought to be annulled – Incorrect valuation deprived Commercial Court of pecuniary jurisdiction – Plaint rightly returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before competent court [Paras 7–9, 14–15].

Distinction Between Declaration and Cancellation – Applicability of Section 25 and Section 40 – Section 25 applicable where declaratory relief sought without seeking cancellation and plaintiff is not party to document – Section 40 specifically governs suits for cancellation of documents creating rights in money or property – Held: Since appellant was executant of guarantee, Section 40 squarely attracted [Paras 14–17].

Guarantee Deed – Declaration of Voidness – Effect – Declaration that guarantee is impossible of performance under Section 56 of Contract Act necessarily results in nullifying the document – Such relief cannot be granted without cancelling the document in law – Court fee therefore payable on full value of guarantee [Paras 15, 19].

Precedents – Non-Executant vs Executant – Judgment in M/s. Siddha Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. M. Shanmugam distinguished – In that case plaintiff was not party to sale deed – Present case involved executant himself – Earlier decisions including A.P. Arulandum Perumal Pillai and Raju v. Venkataswami Naidu followed [Paras 16–20].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Order returning plaint upheld – Appellant directed to re-present plaint before competent court after valuing suit at ₹30 crores and paying court fee under Section 40(1) of the Act.

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Deposit of Balance Sale Consideration – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Decree directed execution and registration of sale deed within stipulated time and permitted deposit of balance consideration if required during execution – Decree-holder filed execution petition within stipulated period and undertook to deposit entire balance consideration with interest – Executing Court permitted deposit though order passed beyond prescribed period – Held: Since decree-holder applied within time, delay attributable to Court cannot prejudice decree-holder – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference [Paras 1–3, 6–9].

Execution Proceedings – Powers of Executing Court – Bound by Decree – Executing Court cannot rewrite or travel beyond decree but is empowered to facilitate compliance with decree terms – Where decree-holder expresses readiness and willingness and seeks permission to deposit consideration within time, Executing Court acts within jurisdiction in allowing such deposit – No violation of decree conditions established [Paras 6–8].

Section 28, Specific Relief Act – Rescission of Contract – Scope – Judgment-debtor sought rescission of alleged unregistered sale deed and recall of order permitting deposit – Held: Section 28 aims to balance equities between parties – When decree-holder sought compliance within stipulated period and delay occurred due to Court process, rescission not warranted – Application rightly dismissed [Paras 6–9].

Delay Attributable to Court – Litigant Not to Suffer – Well-settled principle that party should not be prejudiced for delay caused by Court – Permission to deposit granted later does not defeat decree-holder’s rights when application was filed in time – No illegality in Executing Court’s approach [Para 9].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments in V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar, P. Shyamala, and Chanda v. Rattni distinguished – In cited cases, decree-holders failed to seek extension or deposit within reasonable time – Present case stands on different footing as execution petition with readiness to deposit was filed within prescribed period [Paras 5–9].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court to interfere only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or grave injustice – Impugned orders reflect lawful exercise of discretion by Executing Court – No ground for supervisory interference made out [Paras 1, 9].

Decision: Civil revision dismissed – Orders dated 20.03.2025 and 19.08.2025 upheld – No interference under Article 227 warranted – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Preventive Detention – PITNDPS Act – Territorial Jurisdiction – Forum Conveniens – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner challenged detention order passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India and rejection of representations – Though detention order and memoranda were issued from Delhi, predicate offences, sponsoring authority, records and petitioner’s residence were all situated in West Bengal – Held: Delhi High Court possessed jurisdiction as part of cause of action arose in Delhi, but declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction applying doctrine of forum conveniens – Petition dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate High Court [Paras 1, 5, 9, 17–18].

Article 226(2) – Cause of Action in Part – Not Determinative – Mere existence of jurisdiction under Article 226(2) does not mandate exercise thereof – Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction, High Court may refuse to entertain petition if another forum is more appropriate and convenient – Jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction distinguished [Paras 9–13, 16].

Forum Conveniens – Discretionary Refusal to Entertain Writ – Doctrine permits Court to decline adjudication where lis has closer and more substantial nexus with another jurisdiction – Factors considered include location of parties, sponsoring authority, pending criminal cases, records and evidence – High Court of Calcutta or Rajasthan held to be more appropriate forums [Paras 6, 12–13, 17].

Preventive Detention – Sponsoring Authority and Predicate Offences – Relevance to Forum – Detention based on criminal cases registered in West Bengal – Sponsoring authority (NCB Kolkata) and relevant material located in West Bengal – Held: These constitute integral and dominant part of cause of action outweighing issuance of detention order from Delhi [Paras 2–3, 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Forum Conveniens Doctrine Reaffirmed – Court relied upon Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, Ambica Industries v. CCE, Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. SEBI – Principles reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and guided by convenience of parties and interests of justice [Paras 10–15].

Liberty to Approach Appropriate Forum – Dismissal on ground of forum conveniens does not bar petitioner from challenging detention order on merits before jurisdictional High Court – Liberty expressly reserved [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed on ground of forum conveniens – Delhi High Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach appropriate High Court/forum – Pending applications disposed of.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Injury Claim – Enhancement of Compensation – Just Compensation – Reassessment by High Court – Claimant aged 62 years suffered permanent disability of 20% to whole body due to motor vehicle accident – Tribunal awarded compensation on lower side – High Court reassessed income on basis of minimum wages in absence of proof of actual income – Monthly income fixed at ₹11,100 instead of guesswork – Held: Compensation must be fair, reasonable and in tune with settled law [Paras 9–11].

Permanent Disability – Loss of Future Earning Capacity – Multiplier Method – Disability certificate proved 20% permanent disability affecting earning capacity – Tribunal’s assessment found inadequate – Multiplier of 7 applied considering age of claimant – Loss of future earnings recalculated accordingly – Principles laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar followed [Paras 6, 9, 17].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Enhancement – Claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries, underwent surgeries and prolonged hospitalization – Permanent disability resulted in loss of dignity and normal enjoyment of life – Tribunal awarded meagre amount – Held: ₹3,00,000 awarded towards pain and suffering in light of Supreme Court precedent recognising intangible and lifelong impact of injuries [Paras 11–13].

Attendant Charges – Dependence on Others – Reasonable Lump Sum Award – Evidence showed claimant required assistance in daily activities due to disability – Applying principles from Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and later High Court precedent – Held: Claimant entitled to attendant charges – Lump sum of ₹50,000 awarded [Paras 14–15].

Other Heads – Transportation, Special Diet, Loss of Amenities – Tribunal’s Award Inadequate – High Court enhanced amounts under transportation, special diet, loss of amenities and disability considering nature of injuries and prolonged treatment – Ensured holistic compensation covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses [Paras 16–17].

Interest – Rate of Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Interest @ 9% per annum awarded from date of filing of claim petition till realization – In consonance with Supreme Court decisions [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 21.05.2024 modified – Total compensation enhanced from ₹2,29,248/- to ₹8,65,728/- – Enhanced amount of ₹6,63,480/- payable with interest @ 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months.

Civil Law – Ownership of Immovable Property – Licensee versus Owner – Respondent claimed exclusive ownership of suit property on basis of perpetual lease deed and conveyance deed – Appellant claimed ownership as HUF property and by oral partition – Allotment card of 1950 conferred only tenancy rights and not ownership – Proprietary rights accrued only on execution of perpetual lease deed in 1971 and conveyance deed in 1999 – Other legal heirs relinquished their shares in favour of respondent – Held: Respondent proved absolute ownership; appellant failed to establish HUF or joint family property [Paras 18–26, 41–45].

Hindu Law – Hindu Undivided Family – Burden of Proof – Mere existence of joint family or migration together does not raise presumption of HUF property – Burden lies on person asserting joint family property to prove nucleus and acquisition from joint family funds – Appellant led only bald averments without documentary evidence – Held: Suit property not proved to be HUF property [Paras 42–44].

Contract Law – License Agreement – Revocability – Agreement dated 24.09.1996 permitted appellant to occupy front portion of property during his lifetime – Agreement expressly recognised respondent as owner and excluded rights of appellant’s legal heirs – No interest in property created – Held: Agreement constituted a bare and revocable license under Section 52 of Easements Act [Paras 27–28, 52–59, 62–63].

Will – Nature and Effect – Will dated 24.09.1996 executed by respondent in favour of appellant admitted by appellant – Will revoked in 2009 – Will operates only after death of testator – Testator alive and beneficiary predeceased – Held: No rights accrued to appellant under Will; admission of Will amounts to admission of respondent’s ownership [Paras 29–31, 35–36, 50–51].

Admissions – Estoppel – Appellant and his son admitted execution and contents of Agreement and Will acknowledging respondent as owner – Earlier suit filed by appellant based on same documents claiming only possessory rights – Held: Appellant estopped from disputing respondent’s ownership [Paras 30–37].

Res Judicata – Amendment Application – Rejection of amendment application in earlier suit seeking declaration of ownership does not operate as res judicata – No adjudication on merits regarding ownership in earlier proceedings – Held: Trial Court erred in applying res judicata, but finding did not affect final conclusion on merits [Paras 38–40].

Limitation – Suit for Possession by Licensor – Cause of action arose upon cancellation of Will in 2009 and revocation of license by notice dated 03.05.2010 – Suit filed in 2010 within limitation – Article 59 and Section 65 of Limitation Act not applicable – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 65–69, 71].

Displaced Persons Law – Section 29 of 1954 Act – Applicability – Protection under Section 29 applies only to evacuee properties or notified classes – Suit property not evacuee property – Appellant neither tenant nor allottee under Act – Held: Section 29 inapplicable [Para 70].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Testimony of respondent’s siblings relied upon by appellant suffered from contradictions and admitted strained relations – Evidence required heightened scrutiny – Held: Trial Court rightly discarded their testimony [Paras 45–49].

Mesne Profits – Proof Required – Respondent sought enhancement of mesne profits beyond Rs. 5,000 per month awarded by Trial Court – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent of comparable properties – Held: Enhanced mesne profits cannot be granted without evidence; liberty granted to initiate separate proceedings [Paras 73–75].

Relief – Possession and Injunction – License validly revoked – Appellant in unauthorised occupation thereafter – Respondent entitled to possession, damages, interest and permanent injunction – Appeals dismissed [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 16.05.2013 affirmed – Respondent held absolute owner – Appellant directed to hand over possession – Decretal amount with interest to be released to respondent – Liberty granted to seek mesne profits separately.

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences – Rape – Deaf and Mute Victim – Conviction under Section 376 IPC challenged – Victim was deaf and dumb – Her testimony was recorded without following mandatory requirements of Section 119 of Indian Evidence Act – No videography, no record of signs/gestures, no oath administered to interpreter – Held: Evidence of victim inadmissible due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC set aside [Paras 17, 21].

Testimony of Disabled Witness – Section 119 of Evidence Act – Interpretation Requirements – Proviso mandates assistance of interpreter and video recording – Multiple interpreters used at different stages – No proof of oath to interpreters or record of gestures – Held: Trial vitiated for failure to adhere to statutory procedure in recording evidence of disabled witness [Paras 20-21].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Inconsistencies in Date of Occurrence – Victim’s mother gave contradictory versions – Statements under Section 164 CrPC and oral testimony at variance – Evidence raised serious doubt whether rape occurred on 18.11.2015 or 27.11.2015 – Held: Unexplained delay and contradictions weaken prosecution case [Paras 10, 18, 19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Relationship between Parties – Victim was a major – Appellant’s marriage proposal to victim’s sister rejected – Panchayat held to compel appellant to marry victim – Medical report confirmed sexual intercourse but no injuries or signs of force – Held: Facts indicate prior relationship rather than forcible act – Offence made out under Section 417 IPC, not rape [Paras 22–24].

Decision: Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC modified to Section 417 IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to victim under Section 357(3) CrPC – Criminal Appeal partly allowed [Paras 24–26].