Railway Accident Claims – Untoward Incident – Unauthorized Crossing of Railway Tracks – Liability under Section 124-A – Tribunal’s dismissal set aside – Victims (two adults and one 3-year-old child) run over by Train No. 19051 at Maihar Station – Railway contended that victims were not bonafide passengers and were illegally crossing tracks – Held: Even if victims were crossing tracks unauthorizedly, compensation under Section 124-A is maintainable unless case falls within explicit statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, etc. – Railway failed to demonstrate that adequate preventive measures (fencing, barricades, warnings, announcements) were provided – Ease of access to tracks, especially for a child, indicates systemic failure – Deaths held to be result of “untoward incident” – Tribunal erred in rejecting claim [Paras 8-11].

Railway Safety – Duty to Prevent Track Crossing – Failure of Railway Administration – Loco Pilot’s testimony showed that child suddenly came on track and women rushed to save him – No evidence of deliberate or criminal act – Railway failed to prove implementation of preventive systems to stop unauthorized crossing – Absence of such measures constitutes breach of statutory duty – Liability for compensation arises [Paras 9-10].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Claimants established circumstances of accident – Railway’s reliance on DRM report insufficient to rebut evidence – Finding that Train No. 51672 did not pass through Maihar does not absolve Railway when deaths occurred due to another train (19051) at same location – Tribunal erred in rejecting claims based solely on train-number discrepancy [Paras 8-9].

Appellate Intervention – High Court’s Power – Tribunal’s refusal to award compensation based on incorrect appreciation of statutory scheme – High Court sets aside Tribunal’s order and directs award of compensation in accordance with applicable rules and rates [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Tribunal’s judgment dated 23.12.2016 set aside – Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal directed to award statutory compensation to claimants as per prevailing rules – All appeals disposed of [Paras 11-13].

Dowry Death – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC – Reduction of Life Imprisonment – Husband Convicted – Sentencing Principles Applied – Appellant-husband convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court – Appellate Court held that life imprisonment is not mandatory under Section 304-B IPC and sentence must be proportionate to culpability – Appellant was 20 years old at the time of incident, with no criminal antecedents – Already undergone more than 14 years in incarceration – No conviction under Section 302 IPC – Held: Sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment while upholding conviction [Paras 25-28, 30, 31, 33, 37].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Legal Presumption – Evidentiary Threshold under Section 304-B IPC – Court reiterated that conviction under Section 304-B IPC often rests on legal presumptions unlike Section 302 IPC – Hence, quantum of sentence must account for lack of direct evidence and nature of presumption-based liability – Sentence of life imprisonment not justified in absence of extreme aggravating circumstances [Paras 30, 31].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Omnibus Allegation Against Mother-in-law – No Specific Role Attributed – Accused mother-in-law convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 DP Act – Court found that FIR and testimonies only contained general allegations without any specific overt act against her – Two other co-accused similarly situated (jeth and jethani) exonerated during investigation – Applying parity and settled law, conviction of mother-in-law unsustainable – Held: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 28, 32, 33, 35].

Sentencing – Principles of Proportionality and Judicial Discretion – Need to Consider Reformative Theory – Appellate Court reiterated settled law that punishment must be proportionate to the nature and degree of offence – Courts must weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors – Age, background, possibility of reform and factual matrix relevant – Life imprisonment to be reserved for exceptional cases – Reliance placed on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, and Nadeem decisions – Held: Undue harshness in sentencing without justification liable to correction [Paras 29-32].

Family Members in Dowry Cases – Caution Against Roping in Relatives Without Specific Allegations – Court emphasized that general tendency to implicate in-laws, especially female relatives, in dowry cases must be curbed unless supported by specific, credible evidence – Parity with similarly exonerated co-accused a relevant factor – Held: Conviction of mother-in-law in absence of specific role violates settled jurisprudence [Paras 28, 32, 33].

Decision:

Appeal of Chandra Pal @ Rachit partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal of Smt. Atarkali allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Construction and Infrastructure Contract – Commercial Dispute – Development agreement arising from a tender process for residential housing project – MOU involved construction, infrastructure, and commercial intent – Held: Dispute falls under Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act – Suit not maintainable before ordinary civil court – Trial Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the suit or pass orders thereon [Paras 63–67]

Civil Procedure – Return of Plaint – Suit instituted after enforcement of Commercial Courts Act – Held: Trial Court to return plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before competent Commercial Court – Section 15 of the Act not applicable as suit was not pending prior to the Act [Paras 69–70, 80]

Injunction – Interim Relief – Monetary Claims – Specific Relief Act – Plaintiffs sought to restrain penalty demands and enforcement under contract – Held: Interim relief sought was contrary to Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act – Injunction cannot be granted to restrain monetary claims or enforce specific performance in a money suit [Paras 71, 74–76]

Development Agreements – Not a Joint Venture – Interpretation of MOU – Clauses examined – Held: No sharing of profit/loss or joint control – Project controlled solely by appellants – Respondent had limited supervisory and facilitative role – MOU not a joint venture or partnership – Not covered by sub-clauses (xi) or (xv) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 45–54]

Immovable Property – Trade and Commerce Use – Relevance under Commercial Courts Act – Held: MOU related to vacant land not "actually used" in trade or commerce at time of contract – Future commercial use irrelevant – Sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) not attracted [Paras 41–44]

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Trial Court’s refusal of ad interim injunctions affirmed – Trial Court directed to return the plaint for presentation before Commercial Court – No order as to costs [Paras 77–82]

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Sections 227 and 228 CrPC – Trial court discharged public officials and contractors accused of conspiracy, corruption, and loss to exchequer in road projects executed during 2007–2009 – High Court upheld discharge, holding that the record failed to establish prima facie misuse of official position, fraudulent conspiracy, or wrongful loss to the state – Investigation lacked credible evidence, delayed FIR, and suffered from natural deterioration of work sites due to lapse of time – No interference warranted [Paras 6–14].

Corruption – Loss to Exchequer – Enquiry reports indicated minor or no loss in most of the 19 components – Work components 8 and 19 initially shown as loss-making were justified by subsequent departmental enquiry reports, which found the rates reasonable and execution within sanctioned powers – Allegations of inflated rates or unauthorized approvals unsubstantiated [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B RPC – No material establishing agreement between officers and contractors to commit illegal acts – Mere administrative lapses or procedural deviations insufficient to attract criminal conspiracy without evidence of shared criminal intent – FIR and charge sheet lacked necessary foundational facts to support conspiracy charge [Para 9].

Evidence – Standard at Framing of Charge – Court reiterated principles from M.E. Shivalingamurthy and Kewal Krishan – At the stage of framing charge, court must assess if prosecution case discloses grave suspicion; mere suspicion or improbability does not suffice – Trial court’s order reasoned, based on applicable legal standards, and not perverse [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Revision – Scope of Interference – High Court held revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, not to be exercised for reappreciation of evidence or to substitute trial court’s plausible conclusions – Interference justified only if trial court’s order is manifestly perverse or unsupported by record – No such case made out [Para 12].

Arbitration – Interim protection – Retention of Title Deeds – Arbitral proceedings had already concluded – No subsisting dispute – Commercial Court justified in rejecting interim relief – Petition dismissed [Paras 14–21].

Arbitration – Pendency of Proceedings – No Existing Dispute – Petitioner argued that arbitral proceedings initiated in 2015 were still pending, thereby entitling respondent to retain Title Deeds as security—Court held Arbitral Tribunal had already passed final award; only an application under Section 33 for correction remained, which does not keep arbitral proceedings “pending”—finding supported by respondents’ notices dated 12.08.2015 and 19.08.2015—no subsisting arbitral dispute existed [Paras 14–17].

Retention of Title Deeds – Not Justified Once Arbitration Concluded – Respondent’s continued possession of property documents could not be justified once arbitral process concluded—interim order dated 20.06.2015 stood vacated; Commercial Court rightly held that retention was not legally sustainable—petitioner's reliance on pendency of Section 9/33 proceedings held misconceived [Paras 17–19].

Interim Relief Under Section 34/Article 227 – No Prima Facie Case – Court held that petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case for mandatory injunction—no irreparable injury shown—respondent’s possession arose due to petitioner’s own failure to clear outstanding dues—equity could not be invoked to rewrite obligations [Para 20].

Commercial Court’s Order – No Illegality or Perversity – High Court found Commercial Court’s reasoning sound: existence of concluded arbitration, absence of any operative interim order, and lack of legal basis for retention of documents—no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Articles 226/227 or Section 34 [Paras 18–21].

Delay and Acquiescence – Petition Filed After Years – Petitioner approached Court nearly nine years after initial dispute—conduct shows acquiescence; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to unsettle settled contractual/arbitral rights [Para 21].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Commercial Court’s order affirmed – Liberty granted to petitioner to take appropriate steps for recovery of documents in accordance with law.

Family Law – Maintenance – Interim Maintenance – Standard of Living – Husband Part of Wealthy Family Business – Suppression of Means – Wife Entitled to Maintenance Reflective of Marital Lifestyle – Husband’s claim of earning only Rs. 6 lakhs annually held prima facie false – Business-family finances inextricably interlinked – Court must consider de facto financial capacity and actual lifestyle, not merely taxable income – Wife after 16 years of marriage cannot be relegated to survival-level maintenance – Held: Maintenance of Rs. 3,50,000 per month awarded as interim measure [Paras 16-20, 22-29, 39-47, 62-66, 69-72].

Maintenance Proceedings – Conduct of Husband – Unclean Hands – Material Suppression – Contrived Ownership Transfers – Prima Facie Manipulation of Shareholdings to Depict Penury – False Pleas of Poverty While Living Lavish Lifestyle – Non-disclosure of properties and bank accounts – Adverse inference drawn – Husband’s claim for cancellation of maintenance rejected [Paras 21-24, 30-38].

Marital Standard of Living – Business Family Dynamics – Income Tax Returns Not Sole Measure – Court must consider entire family business structure; partnership assets not separate from partners – Spouse of family-business member entitled to lifestyle commensurate with integrated business wealth – Narrow focus on taxable income inappropriate [Paras 17-20, 45-47].

Child’s Right to Maintenance – Expenses for Daughter’s Education and Development – Father cannot avoid responsibility merely because mother works multiple jobs – Criticism of daughter’s reasonable expenses (fitness, violin, baking, education) unjustified – Standard of living of child must match the father’s means and prior matrimonial lifestyle [Paras 42-43, 51-54].

Wife’s Income – Not Ground to Deny Maintenance – Wife earning through tutoring and minimal horticulture activity does not negate her right to maintenance – No material showing substantial independent earnings – Husband cannot exploit wife’s struggle to deny statutory support [Paras 48-51].

Maintenance Law – HAMA vs. HMA – Technical Plea Rejected – Application for maintenance under HAMA can be treated as one under HMA in matrimonial proceedings – Welfare legislation to be construed purposively – Incorrect invocation of statute not fatal [Paras 67-68].

Interim Order – Prima Facie Findings – No Set-Off – Claim of set-off based on alleged loan to wife’s uncle rejected as misconceived and patriarchal – Maintenance is not a commercial transaction [Paras 7, 23, 60-61].

Decision – Husband directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000 per month as interim maintenance (Rs. 3 lakhs enhancement + Rs. 50,000 existing) – Husband to deposit Rs. 42,00,000 towards 12 months’ maintenance within four weeks – Both IAs disposed of [Paras 69-72].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Gift Deed – Plaintiff challenged registered gift deed executed in 2010 on ground that it was a sham transaction done only to aid sister’s visa application – Suit filed in 2021 seeking cancellation and declaration – Trial Court and Appellate Court found suit barred under Article 59 of Limitation Act as limitation is 3 years from execution – Held: Execution and registration of gift deed not disputed; absence of fraud plea; cause of action stale – Plaint rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 6–9].

Mohammedan Law – Gift of Immovable Property – Plaintiff claimed gift deed lacked essential ingredient of delivery of possession – Court held: Registered deed contained covenant confirming delivery of possession – Gift complete in law under Section 123 of TP Act – Plaintiff continued in possession does not invalidate gift [Paras 3.4, 4.3, 6, 7].

Limitation – Article 59 – Cause of Action – Plaintiff relied on 2021 legal notice from defendant to claim discovery of cause of action – Court found such assertion artificial – Held: Knowledge of gift existed since 2010; no facts pleaded showing discovery of fraud or reason for delay – Delay of 11 years fatal to claim [Paras 3.5, 6–7].

Second Appeal – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Courts below held claim time-barred based on uncontroverted record – No substantial question of law arose – Held: Second appeal cannot be “third trial on facts” or a gamble – Dismissed at admission stage [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law arose – Civil Application also disposed of.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Territorial Jurisdiction – Petitioners/Defendants sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claiming no part of cause of action arose in Delhi – Trial Court rejected application, finding that goods were dispatched from Delhi, payments made to plaintiff’s Delhi bank account, and issue on territorial jurisdiction had already been framed – Held: Where disputed facts regarding jurisdiction exist and trial is at an advanced stage, plaint cannot be rejected but can only be returned if jurisdiction is ultimately not proved – Rejection not permissible at this stage [Paras 5, 7–9, 10.2–10.3].

Civil Procedure – Filing of Additional Documents – Bank Certificate – Plaintiff relied on post-suit bank certificate showing payments received in Delhi – Objection raised that document was filed without leave under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Held: Trial Court justified in accepting the document as it did not exist at the time of suit filing and leave may be oral – No formal application needed if reasonable cause explained and accepted by Court [Paras 6–6.3].

Delay Tactics – Abuse of Process – Defendants filed counterclaim, delayed court fee, and repeatedly sought adjournments – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed late in trial, after issues were framed and evidence concluded – Held: Application a strategy to delay and frustrate plaintiff – Rejected with costs [Paras 10.3, 11].

Procedural Law – Supreme Court Precedent – Applied M/s Bhagya Estate Benchers Pvt. Ltd. v. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2023) – Held: Order VII Rule 11 CPC is meant for threshold scrutiny and cannot be invoked at advanced stages of trial where merits are already under consideration – Delay defeats the object of Rule 11 and wastes court resources [Para 10.2].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – No merit found in plea of lack of jurisdiction – No perversity in trial court order – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on petitioners to be paid within one week [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Death in Motor Accident – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Truck fell 200–250 feet into a gorge resulting in death of conductor – Accused admitted driving – Mechanical inspection showed no defect – Accident of such nature, absent any other explanation, attracts the principle of res ipsa loquitur – Held: burden shifts to accused to explain accident; defence version (deceased putting stone under wheel) inherently improbable, does not explain fall of truck – Negligence proved [Paras 25–31].

Criminal Law – Section 304-AA IPC – Intoxication – Requirement of Blood Alcohol Level – As per Lyon’s Medical Jurisprudence, intoxication begins at 150 mg% – Report showed only 21.68 mg% alcohol – Below even the statutory limit under Section 185 MV Act (30 mg%) – Held: accused cannot be held “intoxicated” for the purposes of Section 304-AA IPC – Conviction under Section 304-AA IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–16].

Criminal Law – Conversion to Lesser Offence – Section 304A IPC – When ingredients of aggravated offence (Section 304-AA IPC) not proved but negligence causing death established – Court may convict for lesser offence despite charge for higher one – Held: conviction altered from Section 304-AA to 304A IPC [Para 32].

Evidence – Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Admissibility – Accused admitted driving – Supreme Court jurisprudence (Sukhdev Singh, Mohan Singh, Ramnaresh) permits use of inculpatory statements under Section 313 CrPC where consistent with prosecution evidence – Held: admission corroborates PW15 (vehicle owner); fact of accused driving treated as proved [Paras 17–24].

Motor Vehicles – Intoxication Standard – Harmonious Construction – Legislature cannot intend that a person under 30 mg% alcohol is punishable under IPC but not under MV Act – Held: interpreting Section 304-AA IPC to punish persons below statutory MV Act limit would be absurd and contrary to legislative intent [Para 16].

Sentencing – Substantial Reduction – Trial Court awarded seven years under Section 304-AA IPC – After alteration to Section 304A IPC (maximum 2 years), High Court imposed 18 months imprisonment with fine of ₹10,000; in default, four months SI – Set-off under Section 428 CrPC allowed [Para 33].

Decision: Conviction under Section 304-AA IPC set aside – Conviction modified to Section 304A IPC – Sentence reduced to 18 months imprisonment with ₹10,000 fine (4 months SI in default) – Conviction under Section 279 IPC affirmed – Appeal disposed of accordingly.