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].

Service Law – Appointment Validity – Retrospective Application of Rules – The petitioners were appointed as teachers and non-teaching staff before the enforcement of the 1978 and 1984 Rules, which mandated training qualifications and a prescribed selection procedure – The institution received temporary and permanent recognition in 1980 and 1984, and was included in the grant-in-aid list in 2006 – Held: Appointments made before the rules were valid, and subsequent rules did not render these appointments illegal, especially after acquiring necessary qualifications – The objection to their appointments at this stage is unsustainable - Appeal partly allowed. [Paras 30-38].

Service Law – Training Qualification – Effect of Non-Possession at the Time of Appointment – Training became an essential qualification under the 1978 Rules – Petitioners appointed before these rules were not trained – Held: Appointment of untrained teachers prior to these rules does not suffer from any defect – The lack of training qualification at the time of appointment was irregular but not void, and their services were affirmed after acquiring the necessary training [Paras 38, 41].

Education Law – Recognition and Grant-in-Aid – The institution was granted recognition and was included in the grant-in-aid list without any objections to the petitioners' qualifications or appointments at that time – Held: The authorities cannot raise objections at this belated stage regarding the procedure adopted at the time of initial engagement of the petitioners [Paras 41, 44].

Principle of 'No Work, No Pay' – The matter of salary payment to the petitioners from July 2012 till their superannuation was relegated to the authority to ascertain their working during this period – Held: Petitioners are entitled to salary if they worked, otherwise not entitled under the principle of 'no work, no pay'.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The order of the learned Single Judge was modified to the extent of relegating the matter regarding salary entitlement from July 2012 till retirement to the authority for determination – The petitioners' initial engagement in the institution was found in accordance with the law, and they are entitled to consequential benefits.

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Negligence Not Established – The Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal’s findings of negligence and liability on the grounds that the deceased driver of the motorcycle had consumed alcohol at the time of the accident – Held: Merely detecting alcohol in the stomach during the post-mortem is insufficient to prove intoxication or negligence – No other evidence was presented to establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol or driving negligently at the time of the accident – Tribunal’s decision upheld regarding the liability of the Insurance Company [Paras 22-23, 30].

Insurance Policy Conditions – Occupant of Tractor Not Covered – The claim regarding the injury suffered by the respondent traveling on the tractor-trolley, which was insured under a "Farmer's Package Policy," was challenged on the grounds that the insurance did not cover the occupant as no premium was charged for such coverage – Held: The insurance was specific to agricultural use, and the policy covered only the driver – Occupant not covered under the policy – Insurance Company’s liability exonerated [Paras 24-26, 31].

Policy Violation – Tractor Used for Agricultural Purpose – The Insurance Company argued that the tractor was not being used for agricultural purposes at the time of the accident – Held: The Tribunal found that the tractor was being used to carry bricks for constructing a farm wall, which falls under agricultural purposes – Insurance Company liable for claims arising from the tractor’s use [Paras 26, 30].

Contributory Negligence – Multiple Riders on Motorcycle – The argument that having four persons on a motorcycle contributed to the accident was dismissed, as there was no evidence connecting the number of riders to the cause of the accident – Motorcycle collided with the tractor due to the latter’s negligence [Paras 28-29].

Interest on Compensation – Higher Rate as Penalty – The higher interest rate imposed by the Tribunal in case of delayed payment by the Insurance Company was found to be inconsistent with established legal principles – Interest adjusted to the standard rate of 6% p.a. [Para 32].

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].

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].

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Commercial Quantity of Narcotic Substance – Section 37 Rigors Considered – The petitioner sought bail in connection with the recovery of a commercial quantity of Ganja. While Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, the court held that these conditions must be balanced against the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Despite the serious charges, the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration (since 03.04.2021) and the absence of strong evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, apart from a voluntary statement under Section 67 NDPS, justified granting bail [Paras 8-10].

Speedy Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Applicability of Section 436A Cr.P.C – The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for more than three years, and only three out of six charge-sheeted witnesses had been examined, with no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, the court emphasized the need for balancing the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act with the fundamental right to a speedy trial [Paras 5-9].

Non-Admissibility of Section 67 Statements – Tofan Singh Case Applied – The prosecution relied on the petitioner’s voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The court held that, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, statements recorded under Section 67 are not admissible in criminal trials for establishing guilt. The absence of other incriminating evidence, such as call detail records or financial transactions, further weakened the prosecution's case [Para 8].

Decision: The petitioner, incarcerated since 03.04.2021, is granted bail on parity with co-accused Ravi Ranjan and considering the prolonged trial. The petitioner is to be released on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation in the trial and non-tampering with evidence. The court also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents [Para 10].

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – No substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission – The appellant framed questions of law in the memo of appeal, mostly pertaining to factual aspects – Held: All the questions framed by the appellant relate to factual aspects and cannot be treated as substantial questions of law under Section 100 of CPC – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 15, 16].

Departmental Inquiry – Joint Departmental Inquiry – Principles of Natural Justice – Joint inquiry was never questioned before the appropriate forum or during departmental appeal – Issue of bias raised by appellant not entertained as the appellant failed to challenge the joint inquiry initially – Principle of equality not applicable as co-delinquent was exonerated on different grounds – Finding of the lower court upheld [Paras 7, 15].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Interference in Departmental Proceedings – Civil court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in departmental proceedings – Court will not act as an appellate authority against the order of the disciplinary authority – No error found in the decision-making process regarding the principle of natural justice – Departmental proceedings were legal and valid, and the order of dismissal is not interfered with [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Evidence – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Departmental Inquiry on Same Charges – Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically render departmental inquiry findings invalid – The appellant was acquitted in the criminal case, but the departmental proceedings held him guilty based on evidence – Civil Court cannot interfere in the decision of the disciplinary authority unless principles of natural justice are violated [Paras 9, 14].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – The Court found no substantial question of law and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court – Departmental inquiry and dismissal were found to be lawful and in compliance with principles of natural justice [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Discharge - Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Whether sufficient prima facie evidence exists to proceed against the accused for abetment of suicide – Held, based on the viscera report indicating poisoning and evidence of the applicant's conduct before and after the death, there is more than a prima facie case to proceed under Section 306 IPC – [Paras 45-65].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Sections 227 and 239 CrPC – The applicant argued for discharge on the ground that the death was due to natural causes (heart attack) – Held, the evidence, including forensic reports, raises sufficient suspicion to justify trial, and the trial court was correct in rejecting the discharge application – [Paras 60-75].

Criminal Law – Alteration of Charges – Section 216 CrPC – Whether the charges should be altered from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC and Section 328 IPC – Held, the trial court has the liberty to alter the charges during the course of the trial if the material on record justifies it, but no alteration was ordered at this stage – [Paras 75-85].

Decision: The application for discharge (U/S 482 No. 6045 of 2020) was rejected, affirming the trial court's decision to proceed with the charges under Section 306 IPC. The application for challenging the framing of charges (U/S 482 No. 8645 of 2021) was also dismissed. The application to alter charges (U/S 482 No. 16035 of 2021) was disposed of, granting the trial court liberty to consider charge alteration if further material supports it.

Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Whether the appellate court can allow additional evidence not produced during the trial – Held, the appellate court can admit additional evidence when necessary to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause – The appellate court found that the deed of ‘Bondobosto’ by the Maharaja of Bardhaman, which could not be traced earlier, should be admitted – [Paras 1-40].

Remand of Case – Procedural Fairness – The court found that admitting additional evidence was essential for proper adjudication – The trial court was directed to hear the case afresh, specifically considering the additional evidence – The remand does not prejudice the parties as both had made claims and counterclaims – [Paras 40-50].

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Application for Amendment – The appellate court held that the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for modifying the plaint should be considered on merits by the trial court – Proper opportunity for objections and additional pleadings must be provided – [Paras 30-40].

Judicial Precedent – Reference to Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2022) and Satish Chand Surana v. Raj Kumar Meshram (2021), where the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for appellate courts to allow additional evidence if it is crucial for justice – [Paras 50-60].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The appellate court's order admitting additional evidence and remanding the matter for a fresh trial was upheld – Trial court directed to conclude the proceedings within six months.