Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Suit for Injunction Simpliciter – Whether a suit for permanent injunction can be decreed without seeking a declaration of title when the title of the plaintiff is under dispute – Held, when a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title, the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title – [Paras 19-22].

Title Dispute – Requirement of Comprehensive Suit – The trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove absolute ownership over the property – First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit based solely on possession without addressing the complicated issues of title – [Paras 5-7].

Burden of Proof – Title and Possession – The Supreme Court's rulings in Anathula Sudhakar and Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji applied, holding that where de jure possession has to be established based on title, the suit must be for declaration and not merely for injunction – [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside – The plaintiff/respondent is directed to amend the plaint to convert the suit into a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, right, and interest, and for consequential permanent injunction – The trial court is directed to decide the case on merits as a suit for declaration of title and possession – [Paras 24-27].

Arbitration Law – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Section 34 of the Arbitration Act – Whether the arbitral tribunal acted outside the terms of the contract by directing the refund of the security deposit and partially rejecting the "risk and cost" counterclaim of the Railways – Held, the arbitral tribunal failed to comply with Section 28(3) of the Arbitration Act by not adhering to the specific terms of the contract, including the forfeiture of the security deposit under Clause 62 of the GCC – [Paras 5-19].

Contract Law – Risk and Cost – Employer's Right to Recover Costs – The arbitral tribunal acted perversely by disregarding key evidence (Annexures 'A' and 'B'), which substantiated the Railways' claim for the full amount of "risk and cost" recovery. The tribunal relied on irrelevant documents, leading to a partial denial of the counterclaim – [Paras 20-30].

Public Policy and Arbitral Awards – The award was in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law as it overlooked crucial contractual provisions and relied on irrelevant considerations. The court reiterated the primacy of the contract and the need for arbitral awards to adhere to the contract's terms – [Paras 31-35].

Decision:

AP No. 780 of 2012 Allowed – The portions of the arbitral award granting a refund of the security deposit and partially refusing the counterclaim for "risk and cost" recovery are set aside. The claimant/respondent is liable to pay the full amount of Rs. 4,06,39,192 to the Railways under the counterclaim. The Railways are entitled to adjust this amount against any dues to the respondent.

EC No. 3 of 2024 Dismissed – [Paras 36-40].

Service Law - Payment of Gratuity – Delay in Payment – Interest on Gratuity – Appeal Dismissal – Petitioner, a retired Professor and Head of Anesthesia Department at Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, sought interest at 10% on the delayed payment of Rs. 10,00,000 in gratuity for the period from 01.05.2018 to 31.08.2021 – Gratuity amount enhanced by amendment to Rs. 20,00,000 on 29.03.2018, but the Respondent only paid Rs. 10,00,000 initially – The Petitioner was paid Rs. 10,00,000 in arrears with interest only from 01.09.2021 to 04.03.2022 – Controlling and Appellate Authorities both denied interest for the period from 01.05.2018, citing the petitioner's retirement date as 28.02.2018, preceding the amendment – Held: No illegality in the denial of additional interest as retirement benefits were calculated based on the date of superannuation and subsequent extension of service till 30.04.2018 was not to be considered for gratuity purposes [Paras 1-7].

Retirement Date – Applicability of Gratuity Amendment – The Petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2018, but the actual date of superannuation was 28.02.2018 – The gratuity amendment increasing the limit to Rs. 20,00,000 came into force on 29.03.2018 – Controlling and Appellate Authorities concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to enhanced gratuity since the retirement date for gratuity purposes was 28.02.2018 – Service extension until the end of the academic term under the State's G.R. did not affect gratuity calculations [Paras 5, 6].

Interest on Delayed Gratuity – Legal Entitlement – Petitioner claimed interest on the balance Rs. 10,00,000 for the period between 01.05.2018 and 31.08.2021 – Controlling Authority awarded interest only from 01.09.2021, when the Form-N application was filed – Appeal seeking interest from 01.05.2018 dismissed by the Appellate Authority, and subsequently by the High Court – Held: No entitlement to interest for the period before 01.09.2021 as the delay was not due to Respondent's fault but procedural requirements related to the extension of service [Paras 4-7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Controlling and Appellate Authority orders upheld – Petitioner not entitled to interest from 01.05.2018 to 31.08.2021 [Paras 7].

Partition Suit – Oral Gift and Applicability of Indian Succession Act – Whether the oral gift made by the first defendant (father) in 1963 to his wife Ayisha is valid, and if the Indian Succession Act applies post the registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act – Held, the oral gift to Ayisha was upheld based on evidence in Exts.A2 and A4, wherein the gift was acknowledged – The Indian Succession Act governs the succession due to the marriage registration under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act – [Paras 1-25].

Special Marriage Act and Succession – Section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 applies to marriages solemnized under this Act, including marriages registered post-celebration under other forms – The trial court’s decision to apply the Indian Succession Act for partition of the property was affirmed – [Paras 20-25].

Gift under Mohammedan Law – Validity of Oral Gift – Under Mohammedan Law, oral gifts are permissible if essential conditions of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession are met – Court found sufficient evidence through the joint statements of the donor and donee, affirming possession and the gift – [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Appeal and cross objections dismissed – The preliminary decree of partition based on the application of the Indian Succession Act is upheld – No interference with the trial court’s findings.

Criminal Law – Additional Evidence at Revision Stage – Section 401 CrPC – Whether additional evidence can be admitted at the revision stage – Held, the High Court can permit additional evidence even during revision if it is relevant and necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. Documents proving illegal detention of the petitioner were allowed as additional evidence – [Paras 10-25].

Arrest and Detention – Credibility of Prosecution's Case – The petitioner’s arrest and seizure of explosive substances on 02.12.1999 was contested through Habeas Corpus documents showing that the petitioner had been illegally detained since 30.11.1999. The court noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s version, which failed to explain how the petitioner’s wife anticipated his arrest a day earlier – [Paras 35-45].

Independent Witnesses – Section 100(4) CrPC – The failure to secure independent witnesses during the alleged arrest and seizure was a significant omission. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with Section 100(4) CrPC in securing independent witnesses during such seizures – [Paras 50-55].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – The conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, is set aside. The prosecution's case was found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies regarding the arrest and seizure. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges. Fine amounts paid by the petitioner are to be refunded – [Paras 60-65].

Criminal Law – Corruption Conviction – Reversal on Appeal – Appellant, a Junior Assistant in the Taluk Office, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.250/- for issuing a death certificate. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines. On appeal, the High Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including doubts about the credibility of the bribe transaction and the circumstances of the trap. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-50].

Witness Testimony – Credibility Questioned – The main witness, P.W.2, who claimed the appellant demanded Rs.250/-, handed over five Rs.50/- notes as instructed by the investigating officer. However, he later received Rs.100/- back, raising doubts about the alleged bribe demand. Furthermore, the defense successfully argued that the appellant was on duty at the District Treasury on the day of the trap, and the prosecution's case that he returned to the Taluk Office was improbable. Testimonies of defense witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 also supported the appellant’s defense that the money was a repayment of a loan, not a bribe [Paras 25-40].

Circumstantial Evidence – Flawed Trap Operation – Although the prosecution relied on the positive naphthalene test of the marked notes, the court found that the prosecution could not conclusively establish that the money was accepted as a bribe. The inconsistencies in P.W.2's statements, coupled with the appellant’s explanation of loan repayment corroborated by P.W.5 (Tahsildar), weakened the prosecution’s case. The artificiality of the appellant returning Rs.100/- also raised serious doubts [Paras 35-50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released immediately if not required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Sections 294, 114 of the IPC – Obscene Acts and Abetment – Whether merely being present as a spectator in a bar where obscene acts are performed constitutes criminal liability – Held, no material on record shows that the petitioner participated in the obscene acts as per the requirements of Section 294 IPC. The prosecution's evidence is insufficient to establish that the petitioner either encouraged the acts or performed any overt actions that could attract the offense of abetment under Section 114 IPC. Precedents confirm that mere presence at the scene is not enough to invoke criminal liability. Petition allowed, proceedings quashed – [Paras 20-35].

Abetment – Section 114 IPC – Criminal liability of a bystander when no overt act is committed – Court clarifies that the petitioner was not engaged in any explicit act or encouragement of the obscene behavior, and there was no evidence to substantiate the charge of abetment under Section 114 IPC – [Paras 24-30].

Decision: The Petition is allowed, and the criminal proceedings are quashed. No offense is made out against the petitioner under Sections 294 or 114 of the IPC.

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Mesne Profits – Assessment – BPCL and M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd. were involved in a dispute over mesne profits following BPCL’s occupation of leased premises. BPCL sought a reduction in mesne profits, while the landlord sought an increase. The court upheld the trial court's assessment of mesne profits, determining that the amount fixed (ranging from Rs. 2,50,000 per month in 2001 to Rs. 4,50,000 per month in 2013) was reasonable based on the comparable rents in the area – [Paras 1-40].

Interest on Mesne Profits – Commercial Transaction – Section 34 of CPC – BPCL contended that the interest rate should not exceed 6% under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the lease was not a commercial transaction. The court agreed, reducing the interest rate from 9% to 6%, noting that BPCL was not in the business of renting properties, and the transaction did not qualify as commercial under the definition of Section 34 – [Paras 41-60].

Adjustment of Deposits – The court clarified that the interest calculation should exclude the monthly deposits BPCL made from October 2010 to December 2013, as these amounts had already been paid towards mesne profits – [Paras 61-70].

Decision:

The quantum of mesne profits fixed by the Small Causes Court was upheld. However, the interest rate was reduced to 6%. BPCL’s application was partly allowed to the extent of the interest rate adjustment, while M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd.'s application was dismissed.

Motor Vehicles – Standards of Visual Transmission of Light (VLT) – State Government Authority – The State Government and its officials were penalizing vehicle owners for using "Safety Glazing" materials that comply with Indian Standard IS.2553 (Part 2) (First Revision); 2019, alleging violations of the specified percentage of VLT – The amended Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules permits the use of "Safety Glazing" subject to compliance with the specified VLT and Indian Standard – Held: The State Government or its officials are not legally justified in penalizing owners of motor vehicles maintained with "Safety Glazing" that conforms to the Indian Standard IS.2553 (Part 2) (First Revision); 2019 and maintains the specified percentage of VLT [Paras 30].

Judicial Interpretation – Rule 100 of CMV Rules – Amendment – The Hon’ble Apex Court in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India interpreted the unamended Rule 100 which permitted only "Safety Glass" – The amendment effective from 01.04.2021 now permits "Safety Glazing," subject to conditions – Held: The State’s penal action based on the interpretation of the unamended rule is not applicable after the amendment allowing "Safety Glazing" [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Challans issued against the petitioners quashed – The State Government and its officials are restrained from penalizing owners of motor vehicles maintained with "Safety Glazing" that conforms to the Indian Standard IS.2553 (Part 2) (First Revision); 2019 and provides the stipulated percentage of VLT [Paras 31].