Railway Accident Claim – Compensation – Untoward Incident – Circumstantial Evidence – Deceased, a 17-year-old boy, died after falling from a local train due to crowd rush while on his way to visit Lalbaugcha Raja – Incident not reported to railway officials but immediate statements given to police at hospital and documented in inquest panchnama and postmortem report – Held: Circumstantial evidence consistent and credible – Failure to report to Station Master not fatal to claim – Rejection of claim by Tribunal set aside [Paras 4–10, 13, 15]

Beneficial Legislation – Railways Act – Interpretation – Circumstantial Evidence – Court held that being a welfare legislation, Railways Act allows reliance on circumstantial evidence to determine whether untoward incident occurred – Principle similar to criminal law accepted – First available statements at hospital given probative value – No evidence of fraud or fabrication found [Paras 11–12, 14]

Bonafide Passenger – Proof of Ticket – Witness Testimony – Friend accompanying deceased testified they had all purchased train tickets – No challenge to this in cross-examination – Court relied on testimony and applied ratio from Union of India vs. Rina Devi – Held: Physical ticket not required when journey and purpose proven through credible evidence [Para 16]

Appeal Allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Appellants held entitled to Rs. 4 lakhs compensation with 6% interest from date of incident – Upper cap of Rs. 8 lakhs imposed as per norms – Payment to be made within 8 weeks upon furnishing of bank details [Para 17]

Property Law – Self-Acquired Property – Female Hindu – Title Dispute – Appeal by plaintiff claiming exclusive ownership over suit land purchased in 1963 – Plaintiff contended that sons (Defendants No.2 and 3) fraudulently mutated their names in revenue records and sold the property to Defendant No.1 – Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit – High Court held: Plaintiff had exclusive title under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act – However, suit barred by limitation as plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent concealment or diligence under Section 17 of Limitation Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 22–44]

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – Property of Female Hindu – Plaintiff, a Hindu woman, purchased land during lifetime – Held: As per Ex.P4 (sale deed), plaintiff purchased 3 acres 10 guntas from Hanumant Balu Mang in 1963 when Defendants No.2 and 3 were minors – Property acquired by female Hindu through purchase becomes her absolute property – Defendant No.1’s plea of joint family property rejected as there was no evidence of hotchpot or joint contribution – Plaintiff’s exclusive ownership of suit property established [Paras 22–28, 31–33]

Transfer of Property – Mutation Entries – Validity – Defendants No.2 and 3 mutated their names in revenue records (M.E. No.1927) allegedly based on Varadi (Ex.D11) and sold property to Defendant No.1 – Held: Mutation entries do not convey title – No valid conveyance in law through Varadi – No evidence to show plaintiff put property into hotchpot or consented to joint ownership – Sale deed by Defendants No.2 and 3 invalid as they had no title [Paras 29–33]

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 58 & 17 – Suit for Declaration – Delay – Plaintiff filed suit in 1995 challenging sale deed executed in 1986 – Claimed ignorance of mutation entry and alienation – Held: Burden on plaintiff to show fraud and diligence as per Section 17 – No allegations of fraud made – Plaintiff lived with Defendants No.2 and 3, who assisted her in agriculture – Claim of ignorance unbelievable – Court held suit barred by limitation, findings of Courts below upheld [Paras 35–44]

Evidence – Conduct of Plaintiff – Plaintiff (PW1) claimed lack of knowledge of mutation and sale – Cross-examination revealed she lived and worked with Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 stayed with her during visits – She denied signature on vakalatnama and plaint, undermining credibility – Court found her version untrustworthy – Failure to challenge similar mutations in other lands further weakened her case [Paras 39–43]

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Plaintiff held to be absolute owner under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act – However, suit barred by limitation – No interference with findings of Trial and First Appellate Courts warranted [Paras 34, 44]

Civil Law – Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Injury – Rejection Upheld – Appellants filed suit for declaration and possession claiming title through registered sale deed of 1957 – Sought injunction against construction over suit property allegedly by temple trust – Trial court found no prima facie case, no irreparable loss, and no balance of convenience – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove continued possession or identity of suit land – Delay of nearly 70 years and admission in affidavit regarding lack of knowledge of title belied their claim – No interference warranted with trial court's discretion [Paras 10, 20-22, 24]

Property Dispute – Identity of Suit Property – Revenue Records vs. Sale Deed – Conflict Noted – Plaintiffs' description of suit property inconsistent with long-standing entries in revenue record showing temple possession since 1965 – Sale deed lacked survey number or definitive boundaries – Temple renovations conducted in 1985 and 2008 with municipal approval – Plaintiffs failed to prove nexus between sale deed and present-day suit land [Paras 13-15, 21]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Scope Limited – Principles Reiterated – Citing Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., held: Appellate court cannot substitute trial court’s discretion unless arbitrary or perverse – Trial court’s denial of injunction found consistent with settled legal principles – No error in exercise of jurisdiction [Paras 23-24]

Judicial Reasoning – Delay, Acquiescence, and Possession – Conduct Considered – Plaintiffs’ long silence since 1957, absence of mutation, and lack of possession undermined credibility – Affidavit stating knowledge of sale deed surfaced only in 2023 further weakened case – Respondents demonstrated continuous possession and legal sanction of construction – Injunction rightly denied [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted in trial court's refusal to grant temporary injunction – No order as to costs.

Taxation Law - Sales Tax – Trademark – Assignment of Intangible Asset – Situs of Trademark – Transaction Held as Export – Not Taxable Under State Sales Tax Law – Brand Acquisition Agreement transferring ownership of registered trademark ‘Crocin’ from Indian company to UK-based entity executed in London – Held: Trademark, being an intangible asset, follows owner’s situs – Application of principle of mobilia sequuntur personam – Since assignee is based in UK, assignment deemed as sale in course of export under Section 5(1) of CST Act – State not entitled to levy local sales tax under BST Act [Paras 36–38, 45]

Indirect Taxation – Central Sales Tax Act – Section 5(1) – Meaning of Export – No Physical Movement Required for Intangibles – Intangible Asset May ‘Move’ Juridically With Owner – Court held that the word “goods” under CST Act includes intangibles – Movement of such asset not necessarily physical – Deeming fiction applies when trademark assigned to foreign entity – Assignment amounts to export even without physical translocation across borders [Paras 30–31, 38, 41]

Intellectual Property – Assignment of Trademark – Registration Not Mandatory for Valid Transfer – Legal Title Transfers Upon Execution – Relying on Sun Pharmaceuticals and Parksons Cartamundi, Court held that assignment is complete upon execution; registration with Registrar of Trademarks not prerequisite for validity – Ownership passes immediately upon assignment even if registration occurs later [Paras 18(c), 44]

Sales Tax – Situs of Trademark – Registration Location Irrelevant – Ownership Determines Jurisdiction – Tribunal erred in treating location of trademark registration (India) as determinant of situs – Held: For intangible property, situs is determined by owner’s location – Decision of Tribunal overturned [Paras 17, 36–37, 43]

Constitutional Law – Article 286 – Bar on State Taxation of Export Sales – CST Act to Be Harmoniously Construed with Constitutional Scheme – Court emphasized that CST Act (Sections 3–5) must be interpreted in line with Article 286 – State barred from taxing sales in course of export – Harmonious construction of provisions ensures consistency in treatment of tangibles and intangibles under tax laws [Paras 30–31, 32–35]

Decision: Reference answered in favour of Applicant – Assignment of trademark ‘Crocin’ deemed to be in course of export under Section 5(1) of CST Act – Not a local sale within State of Maharashtra – Not liable to 4% sales tax under BST Act – Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 2012 disposed of accordingly. [Paras 45–46]

Election Law – Impleadment in Interlocutory Applications – Application by respondent No.1 in election petition seeking impleadment of respondent No.2 as opposite party in three pending IAs relating to dismissal of election petition – Held: Election petitioner had not claimed any relief against respondent No.2 – Respondent No.2 neither a necessary nor proper party for adjudication of pending IAs – Petition for impleadment rejected as not maintainable under Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules [Paras 1, 4, 7, 10–12]

Court Procedure – Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules – Interim Relief – Separate Applications – Rule mandates that a separate petition must be filed for each interlocutory relief – Filing of single I.A. seeking impleadment in multiple pending I.As. not permissible – I.A. No.93 of 2025 dismissed as contrary to procedural rules [Paras 5–7]

CPC – Non-Applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 to Election Proceedings – Court held that power of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be exercised in election petitions governed by specific provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 – Reiterated Supreme Court’s view that general CPC provisions cannot override special statute [Paras 8, 11]

Election Law – Scope of Participation – No Right to Participate in IAs – Respondent No.2, not being a contesting party in the interlocutory applications, held to have no legal standing to participate – Mere impleadment in main election petition does not warrant involvement in interim applications filed prior to such impleadment [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Interlocutory Application No.93 of 2025 dismissed on contest – Held not maintainable in law – No merit found in prayer for impleadment – Separate IAs required for separate interlocutory reliefs under Rule 27(a) – No role demonstrated for respondent No.2 in pending IAs – Petition disposed of finally [Paras 11–12]

Senior Citizen Law – Eviction of Legal Heirs – Beneficial Legislation – Petitioner, an 80-year-old senior citizen, challenged the order of the Appellate Authority setting aside eviction of his daughter and her family from second floor of property – Appellate Authority held eviction unjustified as no ill-treatment or non-maintenance was proved – Held: Such a requirement is not a mandatory precondition where legal heirs have no right or interest in the property – Rule 22(3)(1) permits eviction from property where senior citizen merely has a right or interest – Appellate Authority's view contrary to established precedents [Paras 31–38].

Right or Interest in Property – Scope of Protection – Respondents claimed rights on second floor based on alleged contribution to construction and long-term residence – Court rejected this contention as induction was solely on basis of petitioner’s ownership and license – Held: Possession of respondents is referable to petitioner's permission – Even a “modicum of right” in property is sufficient to seek eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) – Senior citizen’s interest in safety and peaceful possession overrides conflicting claims of licensees [Paras 39–43, 46–47].

Ill-treatment Not Mandatory – Purpose of Act – Court reiterated that the Senior Citizen Act is a beneficial statute – Held: Senior citizens need not establish ill-treatment or wait for abuse to seek protection or eviction of children – Even apprehension of threat to peace, safety and well-being is sufficient – Delay in filing complaint not fatal if harassment persists or senior citizen sought reconciliation before seeking legal remedy [Paras 32–34].

Title Dispute – Not a Bar to Eviction – Court held that eviction proceedings under Senior Citizen Rules are summary in nature – Pendency of civil suit or lack of title in children/legal heirs does not prevent eviction – Civil courts can still be approached by parties if title is to be conclusively adjudicated – Summary eviction permissible for protective purposes [Paras 42–44, 50].

Decision: Eviction Upheld – Impugned Appellate Order dated 28.08.2023 set aside – District Magistrate’s eviction order dated 24.03.2022 restored – Respondents directed to vacate second floor within four weeks – Deputy Commissioner of Police directed to ensure enforcement – Respondents also restrained from harassing or abusing the petitioner in the interim [Paras 48–52].

Criminal Law – Murder – Last Seen Theory – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Govind last seen alive with accused Ashok Kumar and his two accomplices (identified later as Gore @ Ujagar Singh and Ramdas) on 9.4.1983 at 8:30 PM – Dead body recovered on 10.4.1983 at 2 PM – Post-mortem confirmed death by strangulation around 11 PM on 9.4.1983 – Held: Narrow time gap between last seen and death established a strong presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused failed to offer any explanation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent with guilt of accused [Paras 62–69].

Evidence – Recovery of Property – Tractor and Trolley – Tractor No. URB-7911 recovered from Tabarak Ali to whom it was sold by Akil Ahmed in presence of accused Ashok Kumar – Trolley recovered from Sonipat – Accused failed to explain how tractor reached Akil Ahmed – Presence of Ashok Kumar at sale established nexus with misappropriation – Recovery of bricks loaded on tractor from house of Ramdas – Though not stolen property, concealment showed intent to erase trail – Held: Recovery further corroborates involvement of accused in post-murder conduct [Paras 58, 59, 61(ix–xii), 61(xiv–xix)].

Identification Evidence – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Defence claimed identification unreliable due to delay and single witness identification – Court held: TIP not substantive evidence but corroborative – Parade conducted with due precautions and delay not fatal in absence of cross-examination of IO or Magistrate – Identification in court by PW-1 and PW-2 supported TIP – Held: Identification of accused Gore and Ramdas legally sustainable [Paras 65–74].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Delay – FIR registered on 15.4.1983 though written complaint given on 12.4.1983 – Court found delay justified due to informant’s genuine search for son and subsequent identification of dead body – No suggestion of false implication – Conviction upheld [Paras 61(iv–v), 61(xxi–xxii), 74].

Criminal Law – Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused Failed to Explain Circumstances of Departure from Company of Deceased – Tractor and bricks traced to their knowledge and presence – Non-explanation by accused treated as additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Conviction sustained [Paras 68–69].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 201, and 404 IPC affirmed – Accused Ashok Kumar and Ramdas directed to surrender – Trial court to initiate coercive steps in case of failure – Compliance to be reported within two months [Paras 75–78].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Registered sale agreement dated 16.10.1992 relied on by plaintiff – Plaintiff failed to prove continued readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration of ₹2,00,000 within the stipulated three months – No legal notice issued within prescribed time – Notice issued after 2 years and 11 months – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness as mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Specific performance rightly denied [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Sale Agreement – Competing Claims – Prior Agreement Prevails – Earlier agreement of sale dated 10.12.1990 (Ex.B-7) in favour of defendant No.6 found to be true, valid, and partly acted upon through subsequent registered sale deeds dated 29.04.1993 in favour of defendants 2 to 6 – Plaintiff aware of prior transaction – Held: Ex.B-7 prevails over Ex.A-2 – Plaintiff’s agreement is subject to earlier equitable rights [Paras 16, 18, 24].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Protection under Section 19(b) – Defendants 2 to 6 held bona fide purchasers for value under registered sale deeds executed in pursuance of prior agreement (Ex.B-7) – No relief can be granted against them in absence of any challenge to those sale deeds – Plaintiff’s suit for specific performance not maintainable against bona fide purchasers without notice [Paras 17, 23].

Refund of Advance – Equitable Relief – Though specific performance denied, Court held plaintiff entitled to refund of advance consideration of ₹1,00,000 paid under Ex.A-2, with 6% interest from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives of deceased vendor out of her estate [Paras 24–25].

Evidence – Proof of Execution – Ex.A-2 found valid – Attesting witness (daughter of executant) and scribe supported execution and payment of advance – Trial court’s contrary view reversed – Agreement held genuine, but unenforceable due to superseding prior agreement and lack of timely action [Paras 15–16].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Trial Court's Discretion – Trial court’s finding on invalidity of Ex.A-2 reversed due to misappreciation of evidence – However, discretionary denial of specific performance upheld on settled legal grounds, including delay, suppression of facts, and superior equities in favour of prior purchasers [Paras 15, 18, 24].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Relief of specific performance denied – Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹1,00,000 with 6% interest p.a. from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives (respondents 7 to 11) from estate of deceased defendant No.1 – Appeal dismissed as against bona fide purchasers (respondents 2 to 6) – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Section 433A MMC Act – Civil Court Cannot Entertain Suit Challenging Demolition Notices – Plaint Rejected – Plaintiff challenged notices under Sections 260 and 478 MMC Act alleging unauthorized construction – Civil court refused to reject plaint holding suit not barred – Held: Suit was plain challenge to statutory notices; no specific averment of nullity or bad faith – Bar under Section 433A attracted – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 14, 36, 42, 46–47]

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Barred by Statute – Duty of Court to Reject Suit at Threshold – Court held that where statutory bar exists, plaint must be scrutinised meaningfully to assess if jurisdiction is retained – If not, it must be rejected at inception – Trial Court erred by delving into merits and failing to apply strict standards under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 44–46]

Interpretation – Scope of Civil Court Jurisdiction in Urban Planning Matters – Bar is Not Absolute but Limited to Cases Not Involving Nullity or Bad Faith – While recognising that some exceptions exist to ouster clauses (e.g. nullity, bad faith, abuse of power), Court reaffirmed that such exceptions must be specifically pleaded and not merely stated in vague terms – No such grounds found in plaint [Paras 20–28, 41]

Town Planning – Civil Suit to Prevent Demolition – Suit Filed as Tactical Measure to Delay Action Against Illegal Construction – High Court Disapproves Misuse of Court Process – Plaintiff expanded tin-shed without permission; sought to mask demolition notice challenge as suit for possession – Held: Suit a strategic device to delay statutory action – Not permissible in law [Paras 43, 45]

Municipal Law – Section 260 and 478 MMC Act – Action for Unauthorized Construction – Civil Court Cannot Interfere with Demolition Once Notice Issued Unless Action Is Nullity – Court reaffirmed statutory scheme where designated officers are empowered to demolish illegal structures – Civil suits against such notices are barred unless challenge is based on strong foundational grounds [Paras 15–17, 42]

Decision: Revisions allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 8 October 2015 set aside – Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.130 of 2015 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Civil suit barred under Section 433A of MMC Act – Status quo to continue for four weeks to allow appeal [Paras 47–49]