Employees’ Compensation Act – Appeal under Section 30 – Scope – Insurer challenged award contending absence of employer–employee relationship and non-liability due to alleged transfer of vehicle prior to accident – High Court examined registration, insurance policy and pleadings – Held: No substantial question of law involved – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 1–3, 17–18].

Motor Vehicles Act – Ownership of Vehicle – Transfer prior to accident – Registered owner continues to be owner for statutory purposes – Even if vehicle allegedly sold, failure to transfer registration under Section 50 MV Act renders transferor as owner in law – Liability fastened on registered owner and insurer – Reliance placed on Pushpa @ Leela v. Shakuntala and Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet – Principle reiterated that claimants cannot be burdened to trace successive transfers [Paras 4–10].

Insurance Liability – Policy Coverage – IMT-29 – Employees in Private Car – Insurer contended that paid driver not covered – Policy disclosed premium under IMT-29 – Court held that charging premium for two employees in a private car necessarily includes driver – Non-mentioning of driver by name not fatal – Insurer cannot avoid liability after collecting premium [Paras 11, 14–15].

Insurance Law – IRDAI Circular dated 18.10.2023 – Mandatory inbuilt IMT-29 coverage – Employees including paid driver to be compulsorily covered in private car policies without additional premium – Circular applied to clarify scope of IMT-29 and reinforce insurer’s liability [Paras 13–14].

Evidence – Written Statements of Owner and Alleged Transferee – Both admitted that registered ownership remained with Rakesh on date of accident – Deceased admitted to be employed as driver and died during course of employment – Employer–employee relationship duly established – Findings of Commissioner upheld [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Award dated 03.11.2025 affirmed – Insurer liable to indemnify compensation – Direction to Commissioner to disburse deposited compensation amount to claimants in accordance with award.

Partition – Ancestral Property – Oral Partition and Family Arrangement – Validity – Suit Item No.1 admitted to be ancestral property in the hands of father – Ex-B2 Partition Agreement held to be memorandum recording prior oral partition and admissible in evidence – Subsequent oral family arrangement proved due to frustration of earlier arrangement caused by court auction sales – Held: Oral family arrangement prior to 1989 valid and binding [Paras 16, 28–29].

Coparcenary Rights – Daughters – Section 6 Hindu Succession Act (Amended 2005) – Though daughters married prior to 1989 and not entitled to benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990, they are coparceners by birth under amended Section 6 – Held: Daughters entitled to coparcenary status irrespective of date of father’s death [Paras 24–25].

Oral Partition Prior to 20.12.2005 – Saving Clause – Sub-section (5) of Section 6 – Oral family arrangement between father and sons held to have taken place prior to 1989 – Such partition saved from challenge by daughters under amended Section 6 – Reliance placed on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma – Held: Plaintiffs bound by pre-2005 oral family arrangement [Para 30].

Nature of Property Allotted to Father – Effect on Succession – Property allotted to father in oral partition takes character of separate property qua his legal heirs – Upon his death, succession opens under Section 8 Hindu Succession Act – Daughters and other Class-I heirs entitled to shares in father’s allotment [Paras 31–32].

Partition – Determination of Shares – Mathematical Apportionment – Father entitled to 1/3rd share in Suit Item No.1 under oral family arrangement – On his demise, his share devolved on wives, children and daughter’s branch – Plaintiffs each held entitled to 9/144 share – Defendants 6 & 7 together to 12/144 share – First defendant entitled to 114/144 share after application of Section 43 TPA (feeding the grant by estoppel) [Paras 31–32].

Suit Item No.2 – Separate Property – Court Auction Sale – Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Evidence showed Suit Item No.2 sold through court auctions and subsequently alienated – Auction purchasers and subsequent transferees not impleaded – Held: Suit Item No.2 not available for partition and suit bad for non-joinder to that extent [Paras 17, 26–27].

Trial Court Error – Partial Interference Warranted – Trial Court failed to consider devolution of father’s share under Section 8 HSA – Dismissal of entire suit held erroneous – High Court interfered to extent of Suit Item No.1 only [Paras 32–33].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court set aside in respect of Suit Item No.1 – Preliminary decree passed granting Plaintiffs 9/144 share each in Suit Item No.1 – Decree dismissing suit regarding Suit Item No.2 confirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 33–34].

Land Reforms – Conversion – Section 4C WBLR Act – Maintainability dependent on status of applicant – Petitioner applied under Section 4C for conversion of 14.33 acres for residential/commercial use – DL & LRO rejected holding petitioner a “lessee” under Section 4B WBLR Act and not entitled to seek conversion reserved for “raiyats” – Commissioner affirmed rejection on different reasoning relating to factory-closure consequences – Tribunal dismissed challenge – Writ filed [Paras 1, 6–9].

Background – Retention/Resumption history under WBEA Act – Total holding earlier 16.29/16.9 acres with structures – 1999 Government order permitted retention for factory purpose with condition of putting 1.96 acres to factory use within two years, failing which review/resumption under proviso to Section 6(3) WBEA Act – 1.96 acres later resumed; Tribunal (2013) upheld; High Court (2014) set aside; present dispute confined to remaining 14.33 acres and conversion request [Paras 2–6].

Automatic retention under Section 6(1)(b) & (c) WBEA Act – Order under Section 6(3) treated as surplusage – Court held retention contemplated by Section 6(1)(b) (land comprised in/appertaining to buildings/structures) and Section 6(1)(c) (non-agricultural land in khas possession up to 15 acres) is automatic “with effect from the date of vesting” – No further permission/order necessary – Since subject land is 14.33 acres (below 15-acre ceiling) and includes structures, petitioner’s right to retain arose co-genetically with vesting – Hence any later/parallel order under Section 6(3) read with Section 6(1)(g) was superfluous and could not alter the statutory character of retention [Paras 31–33, 40–47, 59].

Section 6(5) WBEA Act and Rule 4A(1) 1954 Rules – ‘Choice’ relevant only where excess land exists – “Choice” under Section 6(5) arises only if land exceeds ceiling requiring selection of portion to retain – Where holding is within ceiling, no choice/statement required; revenue officer’s duty to allow retention operates only in excess situations – On facts, no occasion for “choice” because 14.33 acres is within 15-acre limit under Section 6(1)(c) and land appertains to structures under Section 6(1)(b) – Proviso to Rule 4A(1) reinforces that no choice is required when within limit [Paras 34–38, 40–45].

Deemed lessee under Section 4B(2) WBLR Act – Not attracted where retention is under Section 6(1)(b)/(c) – Section 4B(2) deems a retainer “lessee” where intermediary has been allowed to retain land with/without order under Section 6(1)(g) read with Section 6(3) WBEA Act – Court held that since retention here is traceable to automatic clauses 6(1)(b)/(c), petitioner’s status is not converted into lessee merely because an order under 6(3) existed – Petitioner is a “raiyat” under Section 2(10) WBLR Act and can invoke Section 4C [Paras 49–53, 58–60, 64–65].

Precedents applied – Distinction between clauses (a)–(e) and (f)–(g) of Section 6(1) – Court relied on: (i) Calcutta Mineral Supply Co. for proposition that retention under Section 6(1) cannot be subjected to Section 6(3) – (ii) Ratnagiri Engineering noting automatic retention for clauses (a)–(e) and non-automatic retention for clauses (f)–(g) requiring order under 6(3) – (iii) BRC Construction and Juhi Finalease reinforcing protection where within ceiling/structures exist [Paras 60–63].

Ex parte disposal – As State respondents were absent at hearing, petition decided ex parte on merits [Para 28].

Relief – Orders set aside – Declaration of status – Remand for reconsideration of conversion – Tribunal judgment (03.01.2023) and orders of Commissioner and DL & LRO set aside – Petitioner declared “raiyat” under Section 2(10) WBLR Act and not deemed “lessee” under Section 4B(2) – DL & LRO directed to reconsider and dispose conversion application under Section 4C treating petitioner as raiyat within two months – No costs [Paras 65–69].

Decision: WPLRT 126/2023 allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Petitioner declared raiyat – Conversion application to be reconsidered within 2 months.

Criminal Appeal – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Sole Eyewitness – Benefit of Doubt – Accused convicted by Sessions Court under Sections 302 and 324 IPC for causing death of deceased by hitting with wooden rafter – Appeal against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment – Prosecution case resting substantially on testimony of injured sole eyewitness (PW11) – High Court reappreciates evidence and finds prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1–3, 50].

Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Credibility – Intoxicated Witness – Inconsistencies – PW11 claimed to have witnessed assault and also sustained injuries – Her first version before doctor naming another assailant (Albin) materially inconsistent with later court testimony implicating accused – Admitted consumption of alcohol and repeated inability to recollect material facts – Witness not of “sterling quality” as required in law – Unsafe to base conviction solely on such testimony [Paras 12–14, 36–42].

Medical Evidence vs Ocular Testimony – Contradictions – PW11 alleged repeated assault, dragging, fainting and loss of consciousness – Medical evidence disclosed only simple injuries with no indication of concussion or prolonged unconsciousness – Medical evidence rendering ocular version improbable – Ocular evidence disbelieved to that extent [Paras 36, 41–42].

Investigation – Delay in Recording Statements – Effect – Statement of crucial eyewitness not recorded immediately though she allegedly approached police next day – FIR registered on information given by PW1 instead of injured eyewitness – Statements of material witnesses recorded after unexplained delay of several days – Delay creating serious doubt of embellishment and afterthought [Paras 43–45].

Investigation Lapses – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Non-recovery of Evidence – Prosecution failed to examine independent witness (Shaji) to whom PW11 allegedly narrated incident – Bloodstained clothes of injured eyewitness not seized or sent for forensic examination – Serious gaps in evidentiary chain weakening prosecution case [Paras 46–47].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Suspicion vs Proof – Reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court convicted accused on surmises and conjectures without proper evaluation of evidence – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 48–50].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Temporary Injunction – Specific Performance – Appeal From Order – Interference Warranted – Plaintiffs sought injunction restraining defendants from developing suit land pending suit for specific performance of agreements dated 10.02.2010 and MOU dated 26.02.2013 – Trial Court rejected injunction holding that MOU not executed by original landowners created no enforceable right – High Court set aside rejection holding approach of Trial Court parochial and unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 11, 15].

Agreement for Sale – Rights Prior to Formal Allotment – Not Purely Speculative – Original landowners received allotment proposal and LOI from CIDCO in 2007 – Subsequent agreements and MOU executed on basis of identified plot though corrigendum later substituted plot number – Held: Agreements could not be treated as speculative merely because physical allotment was completed later in 2022 [Paras 3, 7–9, 12–13].

Payments of Consideration – Prima Facie Proof – Conduct of Parties – Plaintiffs prima facie established payment of ₹3.12 crores to original landowners and intermediary defendants over long period through bank records – Denial by original landowners held prima facie untenable when receipt reflected in bank statements and admitted by intermediary defendants – Conduct of landowners found highly questionable [Paras 8, 11–12, 14].

MOU Executed by Intermediaries – Creation of Third-Party Rights – Agreement dated 10.02.2010 expressly permitted intermediary defendants to create third-party rights – MOU dated 26.02.2013 executed pursuant thereto – Held: Absence of signatures of original landowners on MOU not fatal at interim stage when they accepted benefits under arrangement [Paras 8, 11–12].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Due Diligence – Failure – Contesting respondents claimed protection as bona fide purchasers under Tripartite Agreement of 2023 – Court held that no due diligence was shown to have been conducted before entering transaction – Rights of subsequent purchasers could not override prior equitable rights of plaintiffs at prima facie stage [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss – Plaintiffs established strong prima facie case based on substantial payments and contractual framework – Balance of convenience held in favour of plaintiffs who paid large consideration – Irreparable harm likely if construction or third-party rights created pending suit [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Appeal From Order allowed – Order rejecting injunction set aside – Application for temporary injunction allowed – Status quo to continue – Defendant Nos.19 and 20 restrained from dealing with suit land until disposal of suit.

Arbitration Law – Review Jurisdiction – Scope – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review applications filed against dismissal of Section 34 petitions – Ground urged that Court failed to consider Supreme Court judgment in Maula Bux v. Union of India – Held: Review jurisdiction is extremely narrow – Failure to expressly refer to a judgment does not constitute error apparent when legal position has otherwise been considered – Review akin to “ant-hole in a pigeon-hole” when original jurisdiction itself is limited [Paras 11, 19].

Contract Law – Liquidated Damages – Section 74 Contract Act – Proof of Loss – Lease deed containing lock-in period clause stipulating payment of 100% rent for remaining lock-in period on premature termination – Clause held to be genuine pre-estimate of damages and not penalty – Once legal injury or breach established, proof of actual loss not mandatory where compensation stipulated is reasonable – Mere absence of proof of loss not fatal [Paras 8, 15–17].

Precedents – Fateh Chand – Maula Bux – ONGC v. Saw Pipes – Harmonious Application – Maula Bux does not dilute principle in Fateh Chand – Distinction between cases where loss is capable of proof and cases where it is difficult or impossible – Supreme Court in ONGC v. Saw Pipes clarified that where liquidated damages are genuine pre-estimate, claimant need not prove actual loss – Earlier judgments considered and correctly applied [Paras 7, 9, 13–14].

Section 34 Proceedings – Limited Judicial Interference – Court reiterated that in Section 34 jurisdiction, re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of plausible alternative view is impermissible – Arbitral award upholding liquidated damages clause found to be within permissible legal framework – No perversity or patent illegality established [Paras 15, 17].

Lease Agreement – Lock-in Period – Commercial Reality – Lessor had customized premises as per lessee’s requirements and property could not be re-let due to registered lease reflecting in encumbrance records – Loss and legal injury established on facts – Pre-estimated compensation found reasonable and enforceable [Paras 16–17].

Decision – Review Applications dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Common order dated 08.10.2025 upheld – No costs [Para 20].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Desertion vs. Absence without Leave – CRPF Act, 1949 – Charge-sheet alleged desertion though petitioner voluntarily rejoined duty within about 20 days – Essential ingredient of animus deserendi absent – Held: Temporary absence followed by voluntary resumption of duty cannot constitute desertion under Section 9 CRPF Act – Charge of desertion legally unsustainable [Paras 24–27, 30–31, 37–38].

Service Law – CRPF Rules – Rule 31 – Court of Enquiry – Where disciplinary proceedings initiated on premise of desertion, statutory procedure under Rule 31 cannot be bypassed – Even if punishment imposed under Section 11 CRPF Act, foundation of proceedings based on allegation of desertion renders action vitiated – Non-compliance with statutory scheme amounts to non-application of mind [Paras 27–28].

Service Law – Unauthorised Absence – Willfulness – Medical Grounds – Petitioner produced cogent medical evidence of illness of self and spouse – Enquiry Officer ignored medical records without assigning reasons – Held: Absence due to bona fide medical emergency cannot be treated as willful misconduct – Findings perverse [Paras 41, 38].

Service Law – Natural Justice – Denial of Fair Enquiry – Non-supply of relied upon documents – Refusal to permit defence witnesses – Enquiry Officer unilaterally curtailed defence – Held: Enquiry vitiated for violation of audi alteram partem and fair procedure [Paras 40, 45].

Service Law – Misconduct during Training – Findings without Evidence – Training records showed good performance and high grading – Allegations of quarrel and indiscipline unsupported and based on conjecture – Held: Findings not based on legally acceptable evidence [Paras 43–44].

Service Law – Past Punishments – Use as Independent Charge – Earlier minor penalties already undergone – Cannot be treated as substantive charge to brand employee as habitual offender – Held: Charge No.4 unsustainable in law [Para 44].

Service Law – Punishment – Proportionality – Removal from service imposed on constable with commendable service record and gallantry awards – Punishment shockingly disproportionate to alleged misconduct – Discipline cannot override fairness and reasonableness – Interference under Article 226 warranted [Paras 29, 48].

Service Law – Appellate and Revisional Orders – Non-speaking Orders – Mechanical confirmation without addressing grounds raised – Held: Orders unsustainable for lack of reasons and independent application of mind [Paras 46–47].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders of removal, appellate, revisional and rejection orders dated 27.07.2002, 08.11.2002, 01.01.2003, 21.03.2003 and 24.07.2003 quashed – Petitioner directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and seniority – Back wages denied; pay fixation and consequential benefits granted on notional basis – Compliance directed within 60 days – Pending applications disposed of.

Interim Maintenance – Wife and Minor Child – Article 227 – Modification of Quantum – Trial Court directed husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – High Court held that in absence of concrete evidence regarding income of husband, maintenance awarded was on higher side – Held: Interim maintenance reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and child [Paras 8–9].

Marriage – Plea of Non-Consummation – Absence of Specific Pleading – Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion – No specific plea of non-consummation raised in main H.M.O.P. – Such plea raised only at interim maintenance stage held unsustainable – Objection to maintenance on ground of non-consummation rejected [Paras 6–7].

Presumption of Legitimacy – Section 112 Evidence Act – Child Born Within Wedlock – Marriage solemnised on 10.02.2017 and child born on 09.12.2017 – Statutory presumption of legitimacy attracted – Wife entitled to rely on presumption under Section 112 – Prima facie entitlement to maintenance upheld [Para 6].

Maintenance Proceedings – Burden Regarding Income – Conflicting Claims – Wife alleged husband earning Rs.40,000/- per month as flower decorator – Husband claimed to be daily wage worker earning Rs.400/- per day – No documentary proof produced by either side – Court assessed maintenance on overall circumstances and reasonableness [Para 8].

Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court not inclined to set aside grant of interim maintenance – Interference confined only to correction of quantum found excessive – Order of Trial Court otherwise affirmed [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Civil Revision Partly Allowed – Interim maintenance modified from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Trial Court directed to dispose of main H.M.O.P. expeditiously – No costs [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Compromise-Based Bail – Breach of Settlement – Recall and Cancellation of Bail – Anticipatory bail earlier granted solely on the basis of a compromise arrived at before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre – Bail order expressly recorded that parties shall abide by settlement terms – Accused failed to comply with agreed obligation of handing over alternate flat and executing sale deed within stipulated time – Held: When bail is granted on the foundation of a compromise, such settlement ceases to be a private contract and becomes a solemn undertaking to the Court – Breach thereof amounts to abuse of the process of law and violation of judicial trust – Bail liable to be recalled and cancelled [Paras 7–7.2, 11].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Abuse of Process – “Shopping for Liberty” through Hollow Undertakings – Judicial Condemnation – Court took judicial notice of a growing trend where accused secure liberty on the pretext of settlement and subsequently resile from commitments – Such conduct undermines dignity of courts and reduces judicial orders to negotiable instruments – Held: Courts cannot permit litigants to take the judicial process for a ride by securing discretionary relief through deceptive compromises – Stern response warranted to preserve sanctity of justice delivery system [Paras 7.1, 10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 362 CrPC / Section 403 BNSS – Bar on Review – Distinction between Review and Cancellation of Bail – Objection raised that recall of bail order is barred by Section 362 CrPC – Rejected – Held: Setting aside bail due to violation of conditions does not amount to review or alteration of final judgment – Power to cancel bail is inherent and statutory corollary to power to grant bail – Where the very basis of bail order is destroyed by accused’s conduct, Court is competent to withdraw protection [Paras 9, 15].

Anticipatory Bail – Consideration on Merits after Recall – Nature and Gravity of Offence – Criminal Antecedents – Upon recalling compromise-based bail, Court proceeded to examine anticipatory bail on merits for the first time – Allegations disclose cheating, criminal breach of trust and fraud involving substantial monetary loss – Accused involved in multiple FIRs of similar nature – Repeated conduct not a mere civil dispute – Held: Seriousness of allegations, pattern of criminal conduct and societal impact disentitle accused from discretionary relief under Section 438 CrPC [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation not Sole Test – Prima Facie Case and Gravity Paramount – Argument that custodial interrogation not required rejected – Held: Absence of custodial interrogation by itself is not a ground for grant of anticipatory bail – Court must first assess prima facie case, nature of offence and severity of allegations – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 8.1, 13–14].

Costs – Exemplary Costs for Misuse of Judicial Process – Court imposed costs of Rs.25,000/- on petitioner for abusing process of law – Costs directed to be deposited with Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Recovery mechanism provided in case of default – Held: Exemplary costs necessary to deter litigants from manipulating judicial leniency and to ensure no premium is placed on dishonesty [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Application for recall allowed – Earlier order granting anticipatory bail dated 17.01.2022 set aside – Main anticipatory bail petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to surrender within 15 days with liberty to apply for regular bail – Costs imposed – All pending applications disposed of.