Compromise Decree – Bar under Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC – Scope – Plaintiffs not party to earlier compromise decree of 1975 – Suit filed for declaration that decree obtained by fraud, collusion and suppression and is void ab initio – Held: Bar under Rule 3-A applies where plaintiff was party to compromise or claims through party bound by decree – No absolute prohibition against independent suit by stranger alleging fraud – Separate suit maintainable [Paras 12-13, 22, 24].

Stranger to Compromise – Right to independent suit – Plaintiffs and their mother were not parties to earlier partition suit – Not claiming through parties to earlier decree nor transferees pendente lite – Right asserted by inheritance – Held: Authorities including Triloki Nath Singh distinguishable – None lay down that stranger is precluded from filing substantive suit challenging compromise decree on ground of fraud – Independent suit is appropriate remedy [Paras 11-13, 22-24].

Fraud – Effect – Allegation that compromise decree was obtained by suppression and collusion – Law settled that fraud vitiates all proceedings and decree obtained by fraud is non est – Such challenge involves mixed questions of fact and law requiring full-fledged trial – Not amenable to summary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 24-25, 28].

Limitation – Knowledge of decree – Plaintiffs pleaded lack of knowledge of 1975 decree until paper publication dated 17.12.2022 – Suit filed thereafter – Held: Limitation is mixed question of fact and law dependent on evidence – Cannot be decided at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 25].

Partial Rejection of Plaint – Impermissibility – Present suit concerns two properties whereas earlier compromise related to one property – Defendant No.8 sought rejection of plaint in respect of property covered by development agreement – Held: Partial rejection of plaint not permissible – Reliance on Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain – Application under Order VII Rule 11 rightly rejected [Paras 26-27].

Successive Applications – Order VII Rule 11 – Successive applications (Exh.24 and 65) filed without specifically pleading bar under Rule 3-A of Order XXIII CPC – Held: No perversity or illegality in Trial Court’s refusal to reject plaint – Revisional interference unwarranted [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Order refusing rejection of plaint upheld – Observations prima facie in nature – Suit to proceed to trial [Paras 31-32].

Industrial Disputes Act – Public Utility Service – Proposed Strike – Restraint Order – Petitioner Corporation engaged in LPG and fuel supply classified as Public Utility Service under Section 2(n) of ID Act – Union issued strike notice proposing strike on 12.02.2026 – Conciliation proceedings pending and scheduled on same date – Section 22(1)(d) prohibits strike during pendency of conciliation and seven days thereafter – Held: Proposed strike during subsistence of conciliation proceedings is impermissible – Members of respondent Union restrained from proceeding on strike on scheduled date [Paras 13–16, 20–21, 28].

Maintainability – Writ by Employer – Enforcement of Statutory Right – Objection raised that Union not “State” under Article 12 and alternate remedy available under ID Act – Court held writ petition maintainable as employer sought enforcement of statutory protection under Section 22 of ID Act – Distinguished cases where relief sought post-strike or through civil suit – Pre-strike preventive jurisdiction under Article 226 invoked to enforce statutory mandate [Paras 17–18, 23–26].

Right to Strike – Limitations – Though right to strike recognized, it is subject to statutory restrictions – Where strike is in conformity with statutory requirements, Court may not ordinarily restrain – However, where statutory bar under Section 22 operates due to pending conciliation, Court justified in issuing prohibitory order [Paras 19–20].

Public Interest – Essential Services – Disruption of LPG and fuel supply likely to affect public at large – Court considered nature of petitioner’s operations as essential public utility service while granting limited protection – Restraint confined only to members of respondent Union working under petitioner directly or through contractor [Paras 21, 27–28].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Members of Respondent No.1/Union working under petitioner, directly or through contractor, restrained from holding strike on 12.02.2026 during pendency of conciliation proceedings – No broader prohibitory directions issued.

Remission – Premature Release – Section 432(2) CrPC – Competence of Presiding Judge – Life convict’s prayer for premature release recommended by State Sentence Review Board – Judicial Department rejected release based on negative opinion of Chief Judge, City Sessions Court as successor to convicting Bench which ceased to exist – Held: In absence of original presiding Judge, Chief Judge competent to render opinion under Section 432(2) by virtue of Section 5 of City Sessions Court Act and Section 35 CrPC – Provision cannot be rendered unworkable – Question answered in affirmative [Paras 31-39].

Remission – Opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC – Requirement of Reasons – Chief Judge’s opinion primarily reiterated gravity of offence without adequate consideration of post-conviction factors – Relevant parameters in Laxman Naskar and Ram Chander not properly addressed – Mechanical and stereotype reasoning insufficient – Opinion must consider potential for reformation, chance of recurrence, socio-economic condition and purpose of further incarceration – Held: Opinion legally deficient and non-compliant with statutory mandate [Paras 40-45].

Remission – Role of State Government – Whether Presiding Judge’s opinion binding – Judicial Secretary treated negative opinion as sine qua non and mechanically accepted it – Held: Though opinion under Section 432(2) is mandatory procedural safeguard, it is not binding – State must not mechanically follow judicial opinion and must independently assess compliance with statutory requirements – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 46-49].

Administrative Directions – Effect of Earlier Writ Order directing consideration “in line with SSRB recommendation” – Whether binding mandate to grant release – Held: SSRB recommendation subject to approval of State Government – Earlier order required sincere consideration, not automatic release – Statutory scheme not supplanted – Judicial Secretary not precluded from independent decision [Paras 50-55].

Constitutional Jurisdiction – Power of High Court to Direct Premature Release – Scope under Article 226 – Though constitutional courts may in compelling circumstances grant remission directly, such power to be exercised sparingly – In present case insufficient material regarding reformation, conduct, and comparative parameters – Not appropriate to assume executive function at this stage – Matter remitted for fresh opinion and reconsideration [Paras 56-69].

Parity – Co-accused granted premature release – Whether automatic entitlement – Held: Parity not absolute right in remission matters – Must establish equivalence in behavioural and statutory parameters – Insufficient material regarding co-accused – Claim rejected [Para 70].

Decision: Impugned order dated 24.12.2024 set aside – Chief Judge, City Sessions Court directed to render fresh reasoned opinion under Section 432(2) CrPC within one month considering factors in Laxman Naskar, Ram Chander and Bilkis Yakub Rasool – State Government to take fresh decision within one month thereafter without mechanically relying on judicial opinion – Writ petition disposed of – No costs [Paras 73-75].

Criminal Law – Murder vs Culpable Homicide – Sudden Fight Between Brothers – Altercation over Construction of House – Trial Court convicted appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Evidence of sole eye witness (wife of deceased) showed initial scuffle between brothers – Accused were initially unarmed and later brought sword and baluwa – No prior enmity except dispute over house construction – No evidence of premeditation – Accused did not flee and were arrested at spot – Held: Ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC satisfied – Act committed in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel without premeditation and without undue advantage – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 45–60, 64–66].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – For attracting Exception 4, prosecution must show absence of premeditation, sudden fight, heat of passion, and no undue advantage – Court relied upon Arumugam v State, Surain Singh v State of Punjab and Pulicherla Nagaraju v State of A.P. – Mere fact that deadly weapon used does not ipso facto attract Section 302 if surrounding circumstances indicate sudden quarrel and lack of prior intention – Each case to be tested on facts to ascertain intention [Paras 38–41, 50–56].

Evidence – Sole Eye Witness – Related Witness – Testimony of wife of deceased found consistent regarding scuffle preceding assault – Medical evidence corroborated sharp-cut injuries on vital parts – However, background facts established sudden quarrel between close family members – Absence of documentary proof of partition and immediate escalation supported theory of sudden fight [Paras 48–56].

Section 324 IPC – Assault on Informant – Injury report proved simple injury on left arm of informant – Conviction of appellant Somra Oraon under Section 324 IPC upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 23, 63].

Sentence – Period Undergone – Appellants in custody for more than twelve years – Considering modification of conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC, sentence reduced to period already undergone – Direction for release forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 64–65].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Conviction under Section 324 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Writ Jurisdiction – Hiring of Hotel for Protected Persons – Non-Payment of Verified Dues – Hotel hired by Divisional Commissioner and later by Deputy Commissioner for accommodation of protected political persons and security forces – Bills raised for boarding and lodging – Government constituted Bill Verification Committee which drastically reduced claim and released nominal amount – Held: Where hiring and occupation are admitted and premises remained under control of protectees and security forces, respondents cannot dispute liability at belated stage – Committee proceedings vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice – Petition allowed [Paras 21-23, 28-33].

Pleadings – Specific Denial – Admission by Non-Traverse – First Claim Period – Respondents failed to specifically deny hiring of petitioner Hotel for period w.e.f. 18.11.2020 to 05.10.2021 – In terms of Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC, absence of specific denial amounts to admission – Admission is substantive evidence and need not be proved in view of Section 58 Evidence Act – Held: Petitioner entitled to relief for first claim period [Paras 23-25].

Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admission – Court empowered to pass appropriate order where admission of fact is evident from pleadings or circumstances – Reliance placed on Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279 – Held: Admitted hiring and occupation justify grant of relief [Para 24].

Contractual / Pecuniary Claim – Maintainability in Writ – Though writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked for disputed contractual claims, where material facts regarding hiring, occupation and State control over premises are admitted and denial is arbitrary, writ court can intervene to prevent unjust withholding of legitimate dues [Paras 16-18, 28-32].

Bill Verification Committee – Distinction from Fact-Finding Committee – Principles of Natural Justice – Committee constituted months after de-hiring to verify bills – No opportunity afforded to petitioner to participate or justify claim – No indication of verification of petitioner’s occupancy records – Rejection/reduction of claim on ground of inflation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – Held: Ex parte report unsustainable and liable to be quashed [Paras 30-32].

Occupation and Control of Premises – Effect – Hotel premises guarded round the clock by security forces – Two rooms under continuous occupation of security personnel – Keys remained with protectees – Petitioner had no control or liberty to commercially exploit premises otherwise – Held: Respondents cannot later contend that rooms were not in actual occupation or deny liability after benefiting from exclusive reservation of accommodation [Paras 28-29, 32].

Delay in Constitution of Committee – Afterthought – Premises de-hired on 01.06.2022 – Committee constituted on 05.11.2022 and report submitted on 02.02.2023 – Held: Belated verification without associating petitioner and without examining whether accommodation was reserved exclusively for State protectees renders report arbitrary [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 05.11.2022 constituting Bill Verification Committee and ex parte report dated 10.02.2023 quashed – Respondents directed to liquidate petitioner’s claims within eight weeks – In default, interest @ 6% per annum payable.

Local Governance – Special Grade Town Panchayat – Applicability of Statute – Karumandisellipalayam being a Special Grade Town Panchayat is governed by the District Municipalities Act and Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and not by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 – Arguments based on Panchayats Act held misconceived – Statutory framework under Urban Local Bodies Act applicable [Paras 41–46].

Burial Ground – Long Standing Usage – Revenue Classification as Cart Track – Evidence including 2000 Panchayat Resolution, Government Grant, Cash Book, Road/Street Ledger and Collector’s Report establish existence of burial ground at least from year 2000 and usage for over 70 years – Mere classification in ‘A’ register as cart track does not efface factual and customary use as burial ground – Court holds burial ground exists in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 [Paras 50–54].

Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 – Section 172 – Registration and Licensing of Burial Grounds – Obligation of owner or person in control to register existing burial grounds – Council empowered to regulate and notify – Absence of notification prohibiting burial elsewhere renders plea for total prohibition untenable – Subjective satisfaction of Council required for ban under Section 172(3) [Paras 56–58].

Reclassification – Pending Resolution – Town Panchayat Resolution dated 14.10.2025 seeking measurement and reclassification as burial ground – Matter under consideration by Revenue Authorities – Court declines to interfere at this stage and rejects mandamus to prevent reclassification – Ongoing statutory process not to be interdicted [Para 60].

Right to Dignity – Dead Persons – Disturbance of Graves – Collector’s report reveals levelling of graves and disturbance of burial sites – Held: Right to dignity under Article 21 extends to dead – Temporal sanctity of grave violated – Authorities ought to have initiated criminal proceedings under BNSS/Section 297 IPC – State reminded of constitutional and statutory duty [Paras 62–65].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Access to Burial Grounds – Denial or destruction of burial sites of Scheduled Caste community amounts to violation of Article 17 and may attract penal consequences under SC/ST Act – District Collector empowered and obligated to act – Failure to protect burial rights deprecated [Para 66].

Municipal Duty – Constitutional Mandate – Article 243W read with XII Schedule mandates Town Panchayat to provide and maintain burial and cremation grounds – Section 172(4) obligates provision and maintenance within municipal limits – Local body directed to secure and maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage [Paras 61, 67].

Decision:

W.P.No.37501 of 2025 disposed of with directions –

(i) District Collector to ensure segregation and proper fencing of burial/cremation area in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 –

(ii) Town Panchayat to maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage –

(iii) Revenue authorities to act on resolution dated 14.10.2025 and exclude burial area from classification as cart track –

(iv) Collector to initiate action against persons responsible for levelling graves –

W.P.Nos.36402 of 2025 and 44377 of 2025 dismissed – No costs.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay of 450 Days – Explanation of inability to contact counsel found unsatisfactory – However, considering that appeal involved important questions of law and fact relating to adequacy of compensation, delay condoned subject to payment of costs – Application allowed with condition of deposit of Rs.11,000/- in Junior Advocates Welfare Fund [Paras 1-3].

Costs – Welfare Oriented Directions – Court directed deposit of costs in “Junior Advocates Welfare Fund for purchasing Law Books” – Recognizing financial hardships faced by first-generation and young lawyers – Costs utilized for purchase of law/online books to support junior advocates below 28 years of age having practice between 1 to 5 years [Paras 4-9, 15-16].

Judicial Directions – Institutional Support for Young Advocates – Court issued comprehensive directions to Rajasthan High Court Bar Association to create separate bank account in SBI High Court Branch – Disbursement mechanism of Rs.5,000/- per eligible junior advocate on first-come-first-serve basis – Compliance report directed [Paras 15, 19-20].

Policy Directions – Scheme for Aid to Purchase Law Books – State Government, Bar Council of Rajasthan and Bar Associations directed to frame “The Rajasthan Advocates (Aid to Purchase Law Books) Scheme” – Provision for constitution of Purchase Committee, recovery mechanism in case of misuse, inspection of library, and voluntary contribution by senior advocates – Fund to be utilized exclusively for welfare of junior advocates [Para 18].

Access to Justice – Strengthening Legal System – Court emphasized that supporting young advocates through financial aid, mentorship, seating facilities and welfare measures is essential for strengthening justice delivery system – Welfare measures not charity but necessity for institutional growth [Paras 4-14].

Decision: Delay of 450 days condoned subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in Junior Advocates Welfare Fund – Appeal to be restored upon production of receipt – Directions issued for creation and implementation of welfare scheme – Matter listed for compliance.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Bar of Limitation – FIR under Section 304-A IPC – Alleged medical negligence leading to death during surgery – Incident dated 04.01.2015 – Challan filed in October 2019 – Offence punishable with maximum imprisonment up to two years – Petitioner contended cognizance barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as limitation period expired – Held that though challan filed beyond prescribed limitation, exclusion clause under Section 473 Cr.P.C. empowers Court to take cognizance after expiry if delay properly explained or required in interest of justice – Matter remitted to trial Court to consider plea of limitation before framing of charge – Petition disposed of with directions [Paras 5–14].

Limitation – Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Computation – For offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years – Period of limitation three years – In present case offence under Section 304-A IPC punishable up to two years – Cognizance ordinarily barred after expiry of limitation – However subject to Section 473 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10–11].

Extension of Limitation – Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Scope – Court may condone delay if satisfied that delay properly explained or necessary in interest of justice – Investigating Agency cited delay in obtaining Medical Board opinion regarding cause of death – Trial Court yet to apply mind to explanation furnished in final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – High Court declined to adjudicate issue at pre-cognizance stage – Appropriate course is to permit trial Court to decide question of limitation first [Paras 8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Exercise of Power – High Court held that at this stage it would not be appropriate to record findings on sufficiency of explanation under Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Parties granted liberty to avail remedies against order of trial Court, if aggrieved – No ground made out for quashing FIR at this stage [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Learned trial Court directed to hear parties on plea of limitation under Sections 468/473 Cr.P.C. before framing of charge and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Civil Law - Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Memorandum – Registration – Trial Court granted only personal money decree and declined preliminary decree on ground that confirmation letter/memorandum of deposit of title deeds was unregistered – Deposit and confirmation were in 2009 – Compulsory registration of memorandum in Tamil Nadu introduced only w.e.f. 01.12.2012 by Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 2012 – Held: Prior to amendment registration was not mandatory – Trial Court erred in refusing preliminary decree – Plaintiff entitled to enforce equitable mortgage [Paras 12-14].

Stamp Duty – Unstamped Instrument – Objection at Appellate Stage – Respondents contended Ex.A2 was not stamped and hence inadmissible – Document admitted in evidence without objection before Trial Court – Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act bars challenge to admissibility at later stage once admitted – Held: Respondents cannot question admissibility in appeal in absence of objection at time of marking – Objection rejected [Paras 10-11].

Promissory Notes – Proof of Execution and Consideration – Trial Court found execution of Exs.A1 and A3 promissory notes and Ex.A2 confirmation letter proved – Evidence of PW1 and attesting witness PW2 remained unshaken – Handwriting expert opinion noted – Bank statement (Ex.A9) established source of funds – No cross appeal/cross objection challenging findings – Held: Execution and borrowal of Rs.40 lakhs clearly established – Legal presumption not rebutted [Paras 9-10].

Settlement Deed – Alleged Sham Transfer – First defendant executed settlement deed in favour of second defendant after borrowal – In view of proved mortgage by deposit of title deeds, plaintiff entitled to proceed against mortgaged property in default of payment [Paras 5(a), 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court set aside insofar as it declined preliminary mortgage decree – Suit decreed with costs – First defendant directed to pay Rs.68,33,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. on Rs.40,00,000/- from date of plaint till decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization – Time for payment two months – In default, plaintiff entitled to seek final decree and proceed against property – Connected CMP closed.