Land Acquisition – Amendment of Appeal – Enhancement of Compensation – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Appellant's land acquired under notifications dated 13.02.2004 under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Acquisition Collector fixed market value at Rs. 19,660/- per sq. m. – Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 29,956.48 per sq. m. in one case and Rs. 26,896.62 per sq. m. in another – Appellant filed Appeals in 2009 restricting claim to Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- per sq. m. respectively due to financial constraints – Subsequent coordinate bench judgments dated 29.10.2024 in M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. fixed market value at Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. for similarly situated adjacent lands acquired under the same notification – Appellant sought amendment to enhance claim to Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. – Held: Amendment allowed subject to condition that Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on enhanced amount for the period from filing of Appeals till filing of Applications [Paras 1–44].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Scope and Principles – Amendment of pleadings may be allowed at any stage of proceedings – Two essential conditions for grant of amendment are: (i) it must not work injustice to the other side, and (ii) it must be necessary for determining the real question in controversy – Court should adopt a liberal approach – Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct and the amendment would cause irrecompensable injury – Court must avoid hyper-technical approach and amendments should ordinarily be allowed especially when opposite party can be compensated by costs [Paras 19–25].

Land Acquisition – Nature of Amendment – Change of Claim Amount – Amendment confined to enhancement of quantum of compensation does not alter the nature or character of proceedings – Where foundational facts, identity of acquired land, and cause of action remain unchanged, and amendment does not introduce new factual foundation or require additional evidence, the amendment merely enlarges the relief within the same cause of action already pleaded and is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Paras 26–28, 32].

Delay in Seeking Amendment – Balance of Equities – Interest – While Order VI Rule 17 prescribes no time limit for seeking amendment, delay by the Appellant in filing applications after a considerable lapse of time cannot be ignored – Balance of justice met by allowing amendment while protecting Respondents against financial prejudice arising from delay – Held: Appellant entitled to seek amendment to claim just compensation but shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay attributable to the late filing of Applications [Paras 33–41].

Sections 148 and 149 CPC – Inapplicability – Respondent's reliance on Sections 148 and 149 CPC and the judgment in Manoharan v. Sivarajan & Ors. held misconceived – The controversy herein does not pertain to enlargement of time for any procedural act nor to deficiency of court fees – Said provisions and the ratio of the cited judgment have no application to the facts of the present Applications [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC allowed – Appellant permitted to amend claim amounts in LA.APP. No. 450/2009 and LA.APP. No. 515/2009 to Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. – Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on enhanced amount from date of filing of Appeals till date of filing of Applications – Additional court fee and amendments to be deposited/carried out within six weeks – No order as to costs.

Co-operative Milk Union – Government Land – Lease – Resumption – Validity of G.O. – Petitioner/E.R.C.M.P. Union challenged Ext.P15 G.O. dated 11.06.2025 bifurcating two acres of puramboke land, limiting 70 cents to the petitioner and allotting 130 cents to the 6th respondent/K.L.D. Board for a Central Government scheme – Petitioner contended that a 99-year lease was subsisting and could not be unilaterally resumed – Government contended that no formal lease deed existed and the Munnar chilling plant was never transferred to the 4th respondent/K.C.M.M.F – Held: Lease in favour of K.C.M.M.F. established through Government decisions and orders despite absence of formal deed – Munnar chilling plant included in the transfer – Government power to resume under Rule 15(4) of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 lawfully exercised – Sufficient notice given – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 9, 14, 19, 21].

Lease – Creation Without Formal Deed – Co-operative Entities – Government Decisions – Cabinet Resolution – Petitioner Union claimed benefit of 99-year lease granted in favour of 4th respondent/K.C.M.M.F. vide Ext.P3 G.O. dated 24.06.1985 – Government disputed existence of concluded lease in absence of formal lease deed – Held: A narration of chronological events from 1969 through Cabinet Notes (Ext.P19), G.O.s (Exts. R3(d), P3, P5, P5(a)) and valuation reports clearly establishes lease in favour of K.C.M.M.F. – Absence of formal lease deed cannot, by itself, lead to conclusion that no lease was created – Petitioner Union, acting under the Federation, is entitled to claim the benefit of such lease [Para 9].

Transfer of Munnar Chilling Plant – Whether Excluded From Lease – G.O. Interpretation – Respondents relied on clause 5.0 of Ext.R6(j) G.O. dated 07.11.1998 to contend that the Munnar chilling plant does not find mention therein and was therefore never transferred to K.C.M.M.F – Held: Ext.R6(j), issued to effect financial re-adjustments and share arrangements, cannot nullify transactions already completed – Specific reference to the Munnar chilling plant in Ext.R6(e) G.O. and earlier instruments establishes its inclusion in the transfer – Non-mention in clause 5.0 of Ext.R6(j) cannot be given extra significance against the weight of other G.O.s – If Government intended to exclude the Munnar plant from transfer, it ought to have expressly stated so and resumed possession in a manner known to law [Paras 12–14].

Government Power – Resumption of Leased Land – Rule 15(4), Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 – Government lease of puramboke land governed by the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder – Rule 15(4) empowers the competent authority to terminate a lease after 60 days' written notice to the assignee, if land is required for Government or public purposes – Impugned Ext.P15 resumed 130 cents out of the leased 2 acres for use by the K.L.D. Board in connection with a Central Government scheme, which constitutes a public purpose – Held: Action of the Government is traceable to Rule 15(4) and legally sustainable [Paras 16–19].

Notice – Substantial Compliance – 60 Days' Notice – Rule 15(4) – Petitioner Union contended that mandatory 60 days' notice under Rule 15(4) was not given before issuance of Ext.P15 – Held: A series of meetings commencing from 01.02.2024, committee inspections, deliberations by Secretaries, and multiple opportunities to produce title documents afforded sufficient notice to the petitioner Union – The purpose of the notice requirement is to enable the lessee to relocate; since 70 cents were retained by the petitioner for its continued operations, no question of relocation arose – Doctrine of substantial compliance applies – No violation of notice requirement [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed.

Education Law – Examination – Cancellation of Result – Unfair Means – Similarity of Answers – No Direct Evidence – Petitioners were regular Class XII students of Padampur Public School, Bargarh, who appeared in the Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 at Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya, Bandupali – Results were not published on 13.05.2025 and were subsequently cancelled by CBSE Regional Office, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 26.05.2025 on the ground of UFM, citing similarity of answers in some multiple choice questions in two to three subjects with adjacent students – Neither the principal, centre superintendent, invigilators, nor any flying squad had reported any malpractice – No incriminating material was recovered from petitioners or from the examination hall – The examination centre itself was not scratched – Results of all other students of the same centre were duly published – Held: Cancellation of results on the basis of inference, presumption, conjectures and surmises without any direct evidence or material is not sustainable in law [Paras 2, 7, 9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality – Discriminatory Cancellation – Where CBSE published results of almost all students of the same examination centre but selectively cancelled the results of only the petitioners and a few other students without authentic or concrete proof of malpractice, such discriminatory conduct violates the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Cancellation based on mere surmise and conjecture without establishing a definite conclusion cannot be sustained [Para 8].

Education Law – Malpractice – Standard of Proof – Objective Questions – Similarity of Answers Insufficient – In examinations involving objective/short-answer questions, similarity of answers among students is possible without copying, given the nature of such questions – Authorities must have sufficient material to reach a definite conclusion of malpractice; a decision cannot be based on presumption or suspicion alone – Positive decision of malpractice requires direct evidence and not inference from answer similarities alone – Followed: Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. Gayatri Hota and Others, 2001 (I) OLR 398; Rajesh Kumar and Another v. Institute of Engineers (India), Civil Appeal No.5057 of 1997 (SC) decided on 25.07.1997; Harish Chandra Tewari and Others v. Board of H.S. and Another, AIR 1981 (All.) 144; Basanta Kumar Pradhan and Others v. State of Orissa and Others, 2011 (1) OJR 868 [Paras 8–9].

Education Law – Examination Authorities – Primary Responsibility – Deference to Institutional Authorities – Conduct of examinations and campus discipline are primarily vested in the authorities in charge of the institution at the time of examination – Courts ordinarily do not substitute their views for those of examination authorities – However, where cancellation is made without any report or allegation from the in-charge of the examination centre who was vested with all powers and authority to conduct the examination, such cancellation cannot withstand judicial scrutiny – Followed: Chairman, J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1039 [Para 9].

Decision: Writ petition allowed in part – Impugned order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure-2 series) cancelling results of the petitioners in Senior School Certificate Examination, 2025 (Class XII) quashed – All opposite parties jointly and severally directed to publish the results of the petitioners within one week from the date of judgment and to communicate results, consequential certificates and mark sheets immediately thereafter [Paras 11–13].

Land Acquisition – Reference Court – Power of Remand – Jurisdiction – Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1,14,39,264/- vide award dated 13.11.2019 – Reference Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh determination under the Act of 2013 – Held: Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appellate court but a court of original jurisdiction – Power of remand is an appellate power which the Reference Court does not possess – Reference Court can only affirm the award or enhance the compensation; it has no jurisdiction to set aside the award and remand the matter – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter restored to Reference Court for fresh decision on merits [Paras 8–14].

Reference under Section 18 – Nature of Proceedings – The reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award of the Collector – It is in the nature of original proceedings wherein the claimant occupies the position of a plaintiff and must establish that the compensation offered is inadequate by producing material evidence – The Reference Court exercises original jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction – Power of remand must be expressly found within the statute and no such provision exists either in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Act of 2013 [Paras 8–9, 12].

Act of 2013 – Applicability – Reference Court held that compensation should have been determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014 – Even if such view were correct, the Reference Court was bound to itself determine the compensation under the Act of 2013 and could not remand the matter to the Collector – Both respondent's counsel fairly conceded that the Reference Court exceeded its jurisdiction in remanding the matter [Paras 5, 7, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and award dated 25.03.2023 set aside – LAR No. 1 of 2021 restored to its original number before the Reference Court – Reference Court directed to decide the reference on merits within six months from production of certified copy of this order [Paras 14–15].

Transfer of Property Act – Joint and Undivided Property – Sale by Co-owner – Section 44 – Validity – Sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 was executed by Defendant No.1 (father of plaintiff and Defendant No.2) in favour of Defendant No.3 (wife of Defendant No.2) in respect of suit properties comprising ancestral Bari and Gharabari land – Plaintiff sought declaration that the sale deed was void, alleging fraud and absence of consideration – Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed and declared the sale deed void – Held: Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 empowers a co-owner to alienate his undivided share in joint properties without the consent of other co-owners – Such a sale deed is neither void nor voidable but remains valid to the extent of the share of the transferor – Even where a co-owner sells a specific portion or the entirety of joint properties in excess of his share, the transfer is valid to the extent of his interest – The vendee obtains a joint interest in the properties without entitlement to any specific portion until partition [Paras 21–22].

Transfer of Property – Unilateral Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed – Non Est – After execution of the sale deed vide Ext.1, Defendant No.1 executed a registered deed of cancellation bearing No.148 dated 13.1.1997 (Ext.A) purportedly cancelling the sale deed on the ground that he had executed it under a mistaken belief – Held: Unilateral cancellation of a duly registered sale deed by the vendor/executant is void and non-est in the eye of law and carries no legal value – There is no express provision under the Registration Act, 1908 empowering the Registrar or Sub-Registrar to recall or cancel a registered deed – The deed of cancellation vide Ext.A is accordingly excluded from consideration – Followed: Thota Ganga Laxmi and Another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2010) 15 SCC 207; Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2016) 10 SCC 767; M/s. V.Marc India Limited v. Jaan Illahi and Another, 2025 (3) Civil Court Cases 190 (Uttarakhand) [Paras 18–19].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Perversity – First Appellate Court declared sale deed void without recording any specific finding on the alleged fraud and misrepresentation – Held: The findings of the First Appellate Court that the sale deed is void, based solely on the ground that Defendant No.1 had a "fickle mind" and had cancelled the deed, without addressing the fraud allegation, are legally untenable and perverse – Both substantial questions of law answered in favour of the appellant [Paras 12, 14, 22].

Transfer of Property – Co-owner – Execution of Sale Deed – Intention and Knowledge – Evidence – Defendant No.1 in his own evidence stated that he executed the sale deed believing it to be a power of attorney and later cancelled it on realising the mistake – Held: The very fact that Defendant No.1 realised his alleged mistake subsequent to execution and then proceeded to cancel the deed establishes that the sale deed was executed with his intention and knowledge – The evidence of P.Ws.1 and D.W.1 clearly establishes execution with the knowledge of Defendant No.1 [Para 18].

Specific Relief Act – Declaratory Relief – Proviso to Section 34 – When the suit properties are joint and undivided ancestral properties and the plaintiff has not sought partition, a mere declaration that the sale deed is void is not available as the plaintiff's remedy lies in seeking partition of the joint properties – Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit on this ground as well [Para 8].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 and 12.07.2005 passed by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.23 of 2003 set aside – Judgment and decree dated 3.1.2003 and 21.1.2003 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No.26 of 1997 dismissing the plaintiff's suit confirmed – Sale deed No.408 dated 5.2.1996 held valid to the extent of Defendant No.1's share in the joint suit properties [Paras 23–25].

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Locus Standi of Complainant – Electronic Evidence – Summoning of Additional Witnesses – Murder Trial – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order allowing complainant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for formal exhibition of electronic documents (Google Search History, WhatsApp chat, media statement) already on record, and for summoning of two additional witnesses — Accused contended that complainant had no authority to file such application in a State case and that electronic documents were inadmissible in absence of FSL examination of mobile phone — Trial Court allowed application holding that admissibility and reliability of evidence are not to be adjudicated at the stage of Section 311, and that no prejudice would be caused to the accused who retains full right to challenge documents during cross-examination and at final appreciation stage — High Court affirmed, holding that filing of an application by the Public Prosecutor is not a precondition for exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and that the Court may act on circumstances brought to its notice by any person, including the complainant — Petition dismissed [Paras 2–17].

Complainant's Role in Sessions Trial – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Locus to Move Application — Petitioner contended that the complainant/victim has no locus standi to file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a State case — Held: The Supreme Court in Rekha Murarka (2020) 2 SCC 474 while restricting victim's counsel from independently examining witnesses or making oral arguments, expressly recognised that the victim's counsel may bring questions or the need for a witness to the notice of the Court, whereupon the Court may invoke its powers under Section 311 — In the present case, that is precisely what was done — The Court's power under Section 311 is not confined to suo motu exercise and the complainant's request for invoking such power was maintainable — Objection as to locus standi rejected [Paras 7–14].

Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Stage of Exercise – Belated Application – No Bar — Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding, including after closure of evidence of both sides and commencement of final arguments, provided the evidence sought appears essential for just decision of the case — Reliance placed on P. Chhagan Lal v. M. Sanjay Saw: (2003) 11 SCC 486 — Trial Court's exercise of power upheld [Paras 5–6].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers – Scope – Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are meant to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice — Allowing of a well-reasoned application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which causes no prejudice to the accused and ensures just decision, does not constitute abuse of process — No ground for interference [Para 16].

Decision: Petition dismissed — Order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 07.03.2026 allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. upheld — No error or illegality found in the impugned order.

Electricity Law – Unauthorized Use – Assessment – Remand Order – Writ Petition – Maintainability – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Petitioner electricity company assessed respondents for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh assessment limited to the actual period of unauthorized use – Petitioner challenged the remand order under Article 227 – Preliminary objection raised that the Appellate Authority's order is not amenable to writ jurisdiction – Held: The Appellate Authority, being a statutory quasi-judicial body constituted under Section 127 of the Electricity Act read with the Appeal to the Appellate Authority Rules, 2004, falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Preliminary objection rejected – However, writ petition against remand order not maintainable as no prejudice is caused, both parties having equal opportunity before the Assessing Officer – Petitions disposed of with direction to decide within six months [Paras 4–13].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Quasi-Judicial Authority – Scope – Any authority constituted by statute and deciding disputes in accordance with rules made thereunder is a quasi-judicial authority amenable to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – High Court's power under Article 227 is wider than under Article 226 but must be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection – Jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment; interference warranted only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice [Paras 10–11].

Remand Order – Writ Petition – Not Maintainable – It is trite law that a writ petition against an order of remand is not maintainable – Remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer causes no prejudice to either party, as both sides retain full opportunity to place their material on record – Order of Appellate Authority remanding matter for reassessment of tariff held to be in consonance with Section 126 of the Electricity Act [Para 12].

Section 126(5) – Electricity Act – Period of Unauthorized Use – Where the period of unauthorized use is not ascertainable, the Assessing Officer is entitled to assess usage for the entire preceding year – Remand for fresh assessment restricted to actual period of unauthorized use is consistent with the statutory scheme [Para 7].

Decision: Preliminary objection rejected – Writ petitions disposed of in terms of order dated 01.04.2026 in W.P. No. 16781/2014 – Parties at liberty to raise all questions before the Assessing Officer – Assessing Officer directed to decide within six months from production of certified copy of this order [Paras 12–14

Specific Performance – Sale Agreement – Two Agreements Executed Same Day – Public Policy – Section 23, Indian Contract Act – Plaintiff's assignor and original defendant executed two sale agreements on the same day in respect of 8 acres of land — one registered at a sale price of Rs. 50,000/- per acre and another unregistered at Rs. 2,82,000/- per acre — admitted intention being to evade stamp duty and registration charges — Held: Though the contracts for sale of properties are individually lawful, the object and intention behind executing two such agreements is unlawful as it defeats the provisions of law and causes loss to the exchequer — Both sale agreements held void as against public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act — Plaintiff not entitled to relief of specific performance of a void contract [Paras 22, 22.1].

Assignment of Contractual Rights – Privity of Contract – Section 15, Specific Relief Act – The original agreement holder Sivaraman assigned his rights and liabilities under both sale agreements to the plaintiff — Neither Ex-A.1 nor Ex-A.2 was in the nature of a personal contract, nor did they contain any clause prohibiting assignment — Terms of both agreements permitted execution of sale deed in favour of Sivaraman or his nominees — Held: Assignment by Sivaraman in favour of plaintiff is valid — Privity of contract exists between plaintiff and original defendant — Assignee entitled to seek specific performance in absence of express or implied prohibition against assignment [Paras 16, 17, 18].

Payment Receipts – Genuineness – Burden of Proof – Defendants alleged that Ex-A.3 and Ex-A.4, receipts for Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- respectively, were fabricated using blank signed papers obtained by the plaintiff's father in earlier money transactions — Held: Defendants failed to prove the foundational fact of any money transaction between the original defendant and the plaintiff's father — Ex-A.3 and Ex-A.4 bear the original defendant's thumb impression and signature, are duly stamped, and are supported by the evidence of attesting witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 — Nothing elicited in cross-examination to discredit their testimony — Payment receipts held genuine and true — Trial Court's contrary finding set aside [Paras 19, 20, 21].

Money Decree – Unjust Enrichment – Void Contract – Though the sale agreements are void on account of unlawful object, the money transactions of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/-, totalling Rs. 17,00,000/- paid as part sale consideration are not tainted by illegality — Denial of recovery of the said amount to the plaintiff-assignee would result in unjust enrichment of the defendants — In the interest of justice and equity, money decree granted for Rs. 17,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation from the properties left behind by the original defendant [Para 24].

Permanent Injunction – Possession – Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act – Plaintiff, even on his own pleadings, did not take possession under any registered document — In evidence, plaintiff admitted that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties — Plaintiff not in lawful possession — Not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction — Trial Court's denial of injunction affirmed [Para 23].

Decision: Appeal Suit allowed in part — Relief of specific performance and permanent injunction declined — Money decree passed in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 17,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realisation — No order as to costs in Original Suit or Appeal Suit.

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Personal Accident Cover – Owner-Insured – Jurisdiction of MACT – Deceased owner of motorcycle died in accident caused by unknown vehicle – Legal heirs filed claim petition under Section 163A before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. relying on personal accident package policy – Held: Owner/insured, not being a third party, is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163A before the MACT relying upon personal accident coverage – Award set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Third Party Liability – Owner vs. Third Party – Section 147, Motor Vehicles Act – Scope of Compulsory Insurance – Risk to the owner/insured of the vehicle is not required to be covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Owner/insured or legal heirs of deceased owner cannot maintain a petition under Section 163A before the MACT for injuries/death relying upon personal accident cover – They may directly approach the insurer under the personal accident cover and in case of failure, approach the Consumer Forum or other appropriate forum [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Conflicting Decisions – Reference to Larger Bench – Supreme Court – Issue of whether legal heirs of vehicle owners who died in accidents can claim compensation under no-fault liability provisions of Section 163A, or whether such claims are limited to third party liability, referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 15447–48 of 2024 (Wakis Afrin (Minor) v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) to a larger bench due to conflicting decisions of coordinate benches – High Court held the present case governed by its own earlier binding precedent [Para 9].

Plea of Limited Liability – Stage of Raising – Distinguishing Supreme Court Precedent – In Manjusha v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2025 SCC Online SC 1512), the Supreme Court allowed the claimants' appeal since the plea of limited liability was neither raised before the Tribunal nor in the Memorandum of Appeal – Distinguished: In the present case, the Insurance Company raised the question of limited liability in the Memorandum of Appeal – Hence the said decision held inapplicable [Para 9].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed – No costs – Award dated 04.03.2024 in M.C.O.P. No. 688 of 2021 set aside – Respondents/petitioners at liberty to directly approach insurer under personal accident cover and if not compensated, to approach Consumer Forum or other appropriate forum – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.