Contract Law – Coal Supply Dispute – Appeal Dismissed – Coal Pricing – Colliery Control Order 2000 – Imposition of Add-on Charges - CCL imposed add-on charges over the base price of coal, which the appellant paid under protest. The appellant contended that under the Colliery Control Order 2000, only CIL was authorized to fix coal prices and that CCL had no power to impose such charges - Held: The appellant unconditionally agreed to pay the enhanced price, and there was no evidence to suggest that CCL's demand for a 30% premium was for profiteering - Writ petitions were dismissed as no violation of Article 14 or profiteering was established [Paras 29-32].

Contractual Disputes – Maintainability of Writ Petitions - The respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the dispute pertained to a commercial contract without any public law element. The appellant argued that the exercise of powers by the authorities under the statutes governing coal supply was being questioned - Held: The writ petitions were maintainable as they involved the exercise of statutory powers under the Essential Commodities Act and Colliery Control Order 2000 [Paras 35-37].

Price Fixation – Article 14 and Fair Pricing - The appellant claimed that the imposition of add-on charges violated Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that no other subsidiaries of CIL imposed such charges. The respondents maintained that coal pricing involved various factors, and the appellant enjoyed the benefits of source-specific coal - Held: No evidence suggested that the price fixation was arbitrary or aimed at profiteering - Price fixation must ensure a fair price for the consumer while allowing for reasonable profit, but not profiteering [Paras 43-46].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petitions was upheld – No relief granted to the appellant regarding the refund of add-on charges/source-specific premium charges – Costs were not awarded [Paras 49-50].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Estoppel under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act – The applicant was inducted as a tenant by the original landlord, Shri Ramakant B. Desai, and paid rent for several years – Held, a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord during the tenancy – Applicants' claim that the property belongs to the housing society is not maintainable under the principles of estoppel – [Paras 13-26].

Co-operative Housing Society – Ownership and Membership – Impact on Landlord-Tenant Relationship – The applicants argued that since the society owns the property, they have the right to occupy the premises – Court held that membership in the housing society does not negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the original landlord – The applicant's arguments based on ownership under co-operative society laws were rejected – [Paras 7-29].

Res Judicata – Prior Proceedings in Co-operative Society – Applicants contended that prior rulings in society-related matters should bar the respondents' claim – Held, issues resolved in co-operative society proceedings do not affect the landlord's right to recover possession under rent control laws – [Paras 10-21].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – The Appellate Court's judgment ordering the applicants to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the respondents is upheld – The applicants are estopped from denying the respondents' title under the landlord-tenant relationship – Applicants directed to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent with interest – [Paras 27-29].

Service Law – Inter-Cadre Deputation – Order of Central Administrative Tribunal Set Aside – The petitioner, an Indian Forest Service officer from the Manipur Cadre, sought an extension of his inter-cadre deputation to Kerala for an additional two years due to personal difficulties – His initial deputation was granted on grounds of his father's old-age ailments and his family's location in Kerala – Both the State of Kerala and State of Manipur provided no objections for the extension – However, the Government of India rejected the extension request, citing a lack of cogent reasons and delay in submission – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the petitioner’s application for extension – On appeal, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh decision on the request for extension – [Paras 1, 2, 4, 11, 13]

Guidelines and Personal Difficulties – According to clauses (c) and (d) of the inter-cadre deputation guidelines, an extension is based on personal difficulties and requires review – The maximum period for inter-cadre deputation is five years – The petitioner’s original deputation was based on his father's ailments and his family's location in Kerala, which the Government of India initially accepted – The petitioner argued that these reasons still existed with worsened impact, warranting an extension – [Paras 4, 8-9]

Decision and Reconsideration – The High Court noted that the CAT found the petitioner’s request for extension was submitted in time and disagreed with the Central Government's claim of delay – The Court observed that the reasons for the petitioner’s initial deputation were still valid and held that the matter required reconsideration by the competent authority – The Court directed the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s extension request, allowing him to continue in Kerala until a decision is made – [Paras 10, 12]

Order – Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the original petition, setting aside the CAT's order and the Central Government's rejection of the extension request – It directed a fresh decision on the petitioner’s request for a further two-year extension of inter-cadre deputation to Kerala, effective from June 26, 2023 – [Paras 13].a

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appellants convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards the deceased (Paramjit Kaur) – Trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and 1 year under Section 498-A IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable and there was no evidence of cruelty or demand for dowry – Held: The prosecution proved that the deceased died due to poisoning within 7 years of marriage, and there was credible evidence of harassment and demand for dowry – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-32].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The deceased, Paramjit Kaur, made a dying declaration implicating her husband (Mohinder Singh), father-in-law (Amrik Singh), and other relatives for harassment and dowry demands – The appellants argued that the dying declaration lacked a doctor’s fitness certificate – Held: The declaration, recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found credible and supported by other evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports – The absence of a doctor's certificate did not invalidate the declaration [Paras 8-10, 30].

Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The deceased died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to harassment related to dowry – The court applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused – The appellants failed to rebut this presumption, and the prosecution’s evidence supported the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 11-12, 26-31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem and chemical analysis confirmed that the deceased died of poisoning by aluminium phosphide – The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the death was unnatural and related to dowry demands – No discrepancies in the medical testimony were found [Paras 19-21, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC upheld – Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of [Paras 32-33].

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce Granted – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion - The appellant alleged that the respondent-wife insisted on moving to her parental home and later deserted him without consent - The respondent claimed harassment and demand for dowry - The Court noted the absence of denial by the respondent that she left the matrimonial home and the omission to explain the circumstances of her departure - Held: The evidence pointed towards desertion and cruelty by the respondent – The marriage is dissolved on these grounds [Paras 7-10].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Evidence - In cross-examination, the appellant confirmed his modest income, supported by a certificate of net salary - The respondent and her father’s claims of a higher income could not be substantiated, and they failed to explain the departure from the matrimonial home - Held: The appellant's contentions were supported by evidence, and the respondent's objections were not upheld [Paras 12-15].

Permanent Alimony – Consideration of Appellant's Income - Considering the appellant's current income and the respondent's age and education, the Court directed a permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court - Held: The alimony is justified in exercising the Court's discretion, given the dissolution of marriage [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition is reversed – The marriage solemnized on 9th March 2015 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court within two months – The decree to be drawn up expeditiously [Para 17].

Constitutional Law – Citizenship – Cessation of Citizenship – The appellant was disqualified from the post of Mukhiya on the ground of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Nepal, resulting in the cessation of his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – The appellant contended that the State Election Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter, which should have been referred to the Central Government under the Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Held: The Election Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate on the cessation of citizenship; such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government – The decision of the Election Commission was set aside, and the matter was directed to be referred to the Central Government [Paras 11-13, 15].

Election Law – Disqualification – Jurisdiction of State Election Commission – The State Election Commission disqualified the appellant for alleged foreign citizenship – Held: As per the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, the State Election Commission can consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials, provided it is not purely an election dispute – However, contentious issues, especially those concerning citizenship cessation, should be decided by a competent court or the Central Government, not the Election Commission [Paras 14-20].

Procedural Law – Referral to Central Government – The court directed the State Election Commission to refer the dispute to the Central Government to determine whether the appellant had acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily, which could lead to the cessation of Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The order of the State Election Commission and the judgment of the learned Single Judge were set aside – The State Election Commission was directed to refer the matter to the Central Government for determination – The appellant is entitled to continue in the post of Mukhiya until the Central Government's decision is made [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal Overturned – Eyewitness Testimonies – Three eyewitnesses, including the father and daughter of the deceased, testified against the accused, stating that he attacked his wife with a Kassi – Trial court disregarded these statements due to minor contradictions in timing and procedural flaws in the investigation – Held: The High Court found the contradictions insignificant and the testimonies credible and consistent on material facts – Acquittal overturned [Paras 9.3, 11].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapon – The Kassi used in the crime was recovered based on information provided by the accused – FSL report confirmed that human blood on the weapon matched the blood group of the deceased – Trial court dismissed this evidence due to contradictions regarding the timing of police arrival at the crime scene – Held: Recovery of the weapon was crucial evidence supporting the prosecution's case [Paras 12, 13].

Appellate Review – Standard of Interference – The appellate court is empowered to reverse an acquittal if the trial court's findings are based on misreading or omission of material evidence – In this case, the trial court failed to appreciate key evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and forensic findings – Held: Acquittal found to be perverse and legally unsustainable [Paras 14, 15].

Decision:  Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment awarded with a fine of ₹10,000, in default of payment, six months' rigorous imprisonment – Bail bonds cancelled, respondent to be taken into custody to serve sentence [Paras 16, 17].

Compensation – Death Due to Negligence – Maintainability Under Article 226 – The petitioners sought compensation for the death of their minor son caused by the alleged negligence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in maintaining its premises – Held: The High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 for compensation in cases of violation of fundamental rights, including Article 21, where the State's negligence is evident – The Court found sufficient evidence of negligence by MCD in failing to maintain the premises, leading to the death – The writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 15-18].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Application in Public Law Remedy – The Court applied the maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitur,' presuming negligence on the part of MCD – It was established that the falling of a slab from the MCD-owned premises caused the death, indicating clear negligence in maintaining a safe environment for the public – Held: The principle allows for the presumption of negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the case, justifying the awarding of compensation [Paras 19-21].

Quantum of Compensation – Calculation – The petitioners sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 – The Court applied principles from prior judgments, considering factors such as the age of the deceased, potential future prospects, and minimum wage rates – The Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of death until realization – The compensation was computed based on loss of dependency and pecuniary losses, with the amount being adjusted for inflation [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Compensation Awarded – The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of death – In case of non-compliance, the petitioners would be entitled to an additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum – The writ petition was disposed of with these directions [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Rape and POCSO Act – Conviction and Sentencing – The appellant was convicted for offenses under Section 376(1) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for raping a minor girl – The delay in lodging the FIR was attributed to threats made by the appellant, and the victim's pregnancy was terminated only after obtaining court permission – Held: The delay in lodging the FIR was justified, and the evidence, including DNA testing, supported the prosecution's case – The conviction under Section 376(1) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was upheld [Paras 2, 10, 35].

Evidence Law – DNA Testing – Forensic Evidence – The appellant and the victim underwent DNA testing, and the samples matched with the blood of the foetus, confirming the occurrence of sexual intercourse – Held: DNA evidence was conclusive proof of the appellant's involvement in the crime, supporting the victim's testimony [Paras 11-12].

POCSO Act – Victim's Age and Consent – The appellant contended the victim was a major and that the relationship was consensual – However, the court found the victim was 17 years old based on a certificate from the Headmaster of her school – Held: The provisions of the POCSO Act strictly prohibit any sexual relationship with a minor, invalidating any claim of consent – The appellant's argument was rejected, and the court affirmed the jurisdiction of the POCSO Court [Paras 8, 28-30].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Trial Court – The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fined ₹50,000 for the offense under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 – The appeal was dismissed as the evidence substantiated the charges against the appellant [Para 35].