Motor Accident Compensation – Multiplier – Age of Deceased – Deceased aged 55 years 3 months at time of accident – Insurer contended multiplier should be 9 instead of 11 – Held, as per Sarla Verma read with Reshma Kumari and affirmed in Pranay Sethi, multiplier for age group 51–55 years is 11 and for 56–60 years is 9 – Since deceased fell within 51–55 age bracket, Tribunal correctly applied multiplier of 11 – No interference warranted on this count [Paras 3-4, 39-40].

Future Prospects – Government Servant Above 50 Years – Deceased was an Assistant Teacher – Tribunal added 15% towards future prospects – Insurer contended no addition permissible for Government servant above 50 years – Court did not disturb addition of 15% future prospects but examined grant of interest thereon separately [Paras 8-10, 41, 43].

Interest on Future Prospects – Permissibility – Tribunal awarded interest @7% per annum on entire compensation including future prospects – Relying on Champabati Ray and similar Gauhati High Court precedents, held that interest cannot be awarded on component relating to future prospects, as same represents income relatable to future period – Interest to be calculated on compensation amount excluding 15% future prospects – Award modified to that extent [Paras 11, 42-45].

Driving Licence – Fake Licence – Liability of Insurer – Evidence of DTO official established that DL No. 363/NB/04 not issued by office and not traceable in register – Licence held not genuine – Applying Swaran Singh, insurer directed to pay compensation to claimants with liberty to recover from owner – Order of pay and recovery upheld [Paras 31-34, 37-38].

Negligence – Proof – Eye-witness testimony and charge-sheet established rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle – Finding of Tribunal on negligence affirmed [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Multiplier of 11 upheld – Direction of pay and recovery maintained – Award modified to exclude grant of interest on 15% component added towards future prospects – Interest @7% per annum to apply on remaining compensation amount – Records to be sent back to Tribunal.

Service Law – SC/ST Employee – Temporary Promotion with Test Exemption – Rule 13A & 13AA, KS&SSR – Petitioner claimed retrospective promotion and seniority on the basis of exemption from departmental test – Immediate junior promoted on 07.02.2001 – Held: Temporary exemption can operate only from the date junior was promoted and employee must acquire qualification within three years – Failure to pass test within statutory period disentitles claim for retrospective seniority [Paras 2–3, 14–15].

Seniority – Retrospective Refixation – Erroneous Grant – Tribunal and Department entitled to rectify mistake – Seniority initially reassigned in 2016 and reviewed within about one and a half years on complaints – Held: No vested right accrued in favour of petitioner – Correction within reasonable time valid [Paras 12–16].

Rule 13A(2), KS&SSR – Mandatory Reversion – If test not passed within three years of temporary promotion – Continuation beyond statutory period impermissible – Allowing such continuation would prejudice rights of qualified juniors – Principle reiterated [Paras 15–16].

Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot act as appellate court over Tribunal’s findings – Interference justified only in cases of patent perversity, gross illegality or violation of natural justice – Tribunal’s reasoning found consistent with statutory provisions and settled law – No ground for interference [Paras 8–13, 17].

Sit Back Principle – Applicability – Seniority list disturbed within a short period after notice and opportunity – Period of 3–4 years contemplated by Supreme Court not attracted – Doctrine held inapplicable on facts [Paras 6, 15–16].

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Order dated 26.09.2022 of Kerala Administrative Tribunal upheld – No perversity or illegality found warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Allegation of Loan Transaction – Dismissal of Second Appeal – Defendant contended that agreement of sale dated 13.08.2004 was fabricated and intended only as security for loan – No contemporaneous complaint or reply to legal notice disputing execution – Silence of defendant for years held fatal – Held: Findings of trial court and first appellate court based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity warranting interference [Paras 4–14].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Scope – Questions raised relating to alleged loan transaction, family property and sister’s share – Concurrent findings of fact against defendant – No substantial question of law arising – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9–14].

Specific Performance – Family Property – Agreement Executed by One Co-sharer – Defendant failed to establish that suit property could not be subject matter of agreement of sale – Mere plea of sister’s share without supporting evidence insufficient – Agreement extent consistent with pleadings and evidence [Paras 5–7, 10].

Evidence – Conduct of Party – Silence After Legal Notice – Defendant failed to reply to notice seeking execution of sale deed and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fabrication – Conduct weighed against defendant – Adverse inference drawn [Paras 10–13].

Execution Proceedings – Challenge under Article 227 – Consequence of Dismissal of Second Appeal – Sale deed executed and possession delivered pursuant to decree – Civil Revision Petitions challenging execution and delivery warrant rendered infructuous – No ground for interference once decree upheld [Paras 15–16].

Civil Revision – Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – Executing court acted in accordance with decree – No jurisdictional error or material irregularity shown – Revisions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – Decree for specific performance confirmed – No costs – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Companies Act – Financial Statements – Non-disclosure of Specified Bank Notes – Criminal Prosecution – Quashing – Complaint under Sections 129/448 Companies Act filed against Director alone without impleading company – Held: Company is principal offender – Proceedings against director alone not maintainable [Paras 48–56].

Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability – Directors of Company – Requirement of Arraigning Company as Accused – Liability of directors under Section 129(7) Companies Act presupposes contravention by company – Without prosecuting company, directors cannot be fastened with criminal liability – Complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party [Paras 49–57].

Companies Act – Offences – Section 439(2) – Locus of Deputy Registrar – Interpretation of “Registrar” – Definition under Section 2(75) includes Deputy Registrar – Complaint by Deputy Registrar held maintainable on this count [Paras 42–43].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Applicability – Offences under Sections 129 and 448 Companies Act punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years – Bar of limitation under Section 468 CrPC not attracted – Objection as to limitation rejected [Para 44].

False Statement – Mens Rea – Section 448 Companies Act – Scope – Mere non-disclosure or omission in balance sheet does not ipso facto amount to “false statement” – Requirement of deliberate falsity and knowledge not prima facie made out – Allegations vague and general [Paras 45–47, 58].

Accounting Standards – Related Party Transactions – Criminal Liability – Allegations pertain to preparation of balance sheet and accounting treatment – Primarily attributable to company – No specific role or overt act attributed to petitioner-director [Paras 54–55, 58].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Continuation of criminal proceedings against director alone despite absence of company as accused and lack of specific allegations would cause oppression – Proceedings liable to be quashed to secure ends of justice [Paras 58–59].

Precedent – Consistency – Coordinate Bench Decision – Identical allegations quashed earlier against similarly placed directors – No distinguishing feature shown – Present complaint also liable to be set aside [Para 32, 59].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Complaint Case No. 44 of 2019 quashed insofar as petitioner concerned – All consequential orders set aside – Interim orders vacated [Paras 60–61].

Mandatory Injunction – Licensor–Licensee Relationship – Maintainability – Suit for mandatory injunction filed by husband and subsequent purchaser against wife occupying flat – Wife claimed to be trespasser post revocation of licence – Held: Where defendant occupies premises as a licensee and licence is terminated, suit for mandatory injunction for recovery of possession is maintainable – Not barred under Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act – Reliance placed on Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh and Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma [Paras 14–18].

Ownership of Property – Exclusive Title – Stridhan Plea – Wife claimed joint ownership alleging contribution of stridhan and personal assets – Lease deed and allotment documents stood solely in husband’s name – No documentary proof of contribution produced – Affidavit filed by wife not subjected to cross-examination – Held: Burden of proving joint ownership lay on wife and remained undischarged – Trial court rightly held husband to be sole owner [Paras 19–26].

Evidence – Affidavit Without Cross-Examination – Evidentiary Value – Wife failed to appear for cross-examination despite repeated opportunities – Held: Affidavit in evidence without cross-examination cannot be relied upon – Trial court justified in discarding such evidence [Paras 21–24].

Transfer of Property – Sale During Pendency of Suit – Section 52 TPA – Lis Pendens – Sale deed executed in favour of subsequent purchaser during pendency of litigation – Necessary permissions obtained from NOIDA and builder – Indemnity bond executed – Mere pendency of matrimonial or domestic violence proceedings does not invalidate transfer – Purchaser acted in good faith after due diligence – Sale deed held valid [Paras 27–32].

Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Scope – Wife claimed right of residence under PWDV Act – Evidence showed existence of more than one household – Held: Act contemplates right in one shared household only – Disputed flat could not be treated as shared household once licence stood terminated and alternate residence existed [Paras 31–32].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Quantum – Trial court awarded damages @ ₹60,000 per month based on admitted prior rental value – Claim of low maintenance by wife irrelevant for determining mesne profits payable to lawful owner – Award held reasonable and supported by evidence [Paras 33–34].

Appellate Interference – Findings of Fact – Ownership and Possession – High Court reiterated that findings of fact by trial court should not be interfered with unless perverse – No perversity or illegality shown – Decree affirmed [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Both First Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 affirmed – Mandatory injunction, declaration of ownership in favour of purchaser, and award of mesne profits upheld.

False Promise of Marriage – Cheating under Section 417 IPC – Consensual Relationship Between Majors – Appellant convicted for cheating after acquittal under Section 376 IPC – Evidence showed long-standing love affair of more than 1½ years and repeated consensual physical relationship – No proof that consent was obtained under misconception of fact – Held: Conviction under Section 417 IPC unsustainable – Appeal allowed [Paras 7-8].

Consent – Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Prosecutrix aged about 23 years – Admitted love affair and voluntary physical relationship on several occasions – No evidence of force, threat or coercion – Medical evidence revealed no injuries – Trial Court itself held consent voluntary and not vitiated under Section 90 IPC – In absence of proof of false promise at inception, offence of cheating not made out [Paras 4, 7].

Rape Charge – Acquittal by Trial Court – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 376 IPC – DNA evidence confirmed appellant as biological father of child – However, mere proof of paternity does not establish sexual intercourse against will or on false promise – Prosecution failed to prove absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3, 7].

Delay and Disclosure – Relationship Disclosed Only After Pregnancy – Evidence showed prosecutrix informed family only after becoming pregnant and when appellant declined marriage – Indicates consensual relationship rather than deception at inception – Conviction based solely on subsequent refusal to marry impermissible [Paras 4, 7].

Compensation – Despite Acquittal – Though conviction and sentence set aside, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- already deposited in name of minor child directed to be sustained along with conditions permitting mother to withdraw periodical interest for welfare of child [Para 8].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 417 IPC set aside – Compensation already deposited in name of minor child sustained.

Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Registered Consent Decree – Scope of Jurisdiction – Revenue authorities deleted mutation entry despite existence of registered Consent Decree passed by High Court – Held: Mutation proceedings are fiscal and administrative – Authorities under Sections 149 and 150 MLRC have no jurisdiction to adjudicate title, testamentary succession or validity of civil court decrees – Once a registered civil court decree subsists and is not set aside, revenue authorities are bound to give effect to it for mutation purposes [Paras 58–63, 78].

Civil Court Decree – Binding Effect – Revenue Authorities Cannot Sit in Appeal – Impugned orders examined validity of vendors’ title, probate, succession, prohibitory orders and legality of registration of Consent Decree – Held: Such exercise amounts to sitting in appeal over civil court decree – Impermissible and without jurisdiction – Decree continues to bind authorities until set aside by competent court [Paras 62–75].

Mutation – “Person Interested” – Locus Standi – Respondent claimed locus as lessee and objected to mutation – Mere bald assertion of possession or tenancy without foundational documentary proof insufficient – “Person interested” cannot be expansively construed to allow obstruction of mutation based on unsubstantiated claims – Independent rights, if any, to be established before civil court [Paras 67–68, 85].

Mutation vs Title – Well-settled Law – Entries in revenue records do not confer, extinguish or declare title – They are maintained for fiscal purposes – Revenue authorities can examine documents only to see whether they disclose acquisition of rights, not whether such rights are legally valid – Title disputes lie exclusively within civil court jurisdiction [Paras 59–60, 69–70].

Probate and Testamentary Succession – Effect in Mutation Proceedings – Absence of probate or letters of administration may be relevant in civil proceedings – Cannot justify refusal or deletion of mutation when claimant relies on a subsisting civil court decree – Questions of succession and representative title cannot be reopened by revenue authorities [Paras 69–72, 88].

Prohibitory / Restraint Orders – Effect on Mutation – Alleged prohibitory orders restraining transfer relied upon by objector – Held: Revenue authorities cannot examine legality or consequences of such orders to declare civil court decree ineffective – Validity and effect of restraint orders must be decided in appropriate substantive proceedings [Paras 73–74, 87].

Delay in Registration – Stamp and Registration Issues – Long delay in registration of Consent Decree and stamp duty objections raised – Held: Once decree stands registered and registration remains undisturbed, revenue authorities cannot refuse mutation on ground that registration was illegal or time-barred – Such issues fall outside mutation jurisdiction [Paras 76–77].

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Concurrent findings by statutory authorities normally not interfered with – However, where authorities act beyond statutory competence and commit jurisdictional error, High Court must interfere under Article 226 to prevent manifest injustice [Paras 81–82, 89].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 14.05.2009, 29.03.2010 and 30.11.2011 quashed and set aside – Mutation Entry No.2248 restored in favour of Petitioner – Clarified that mutation is for fiscal purposes only and does not confer or determine title – No order as to costs [Paras 90–95].

Telegraph Act – Compensation for Surface Damage – Limitation – Respondent accepted assessed compensation in 1999 – Claim petition for enhancement filed in 2006 after 7 years – Specific plea of limitation taken in written statement – Held, limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction – Even if not framed, Court bound under Section 3 of Limitation Act to consider bar of limitation – Failure of District Judge to frame and decide issue of limitation vitiates impugned judgment [Paras 24-30].

Remand – Non-compliance with Earlier Directions – Earlier judgment of High Court in WP(C) No. 6097/2012 set aside initial award and remanded matter with observations including plea of limitation – On remand, District Judge again failed to frame issue on limitation and proceeded to award enhanced compensation – Held, such omission contrary to law and directions of High Court – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 11-13, 25, 28].

Ex Parte Proceedings – Duty of Court – Even if case proceeds ex parte or party fails to adduce evidence, Court must frame issues based on pleadings – Specific plea in written statement regarding limitation cannot be ignored – Framing of proper issues is mandatory [Paras 26-30].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Where subordinate court fails to consider jurisdictional issue like limitation and acts contrary to law, interference warranted – Matter remanded for fresh decision after framing issue on limitation and granting opportunity to parties to adduce evidence [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 21.09.2022 in Misc. (P.G.) Case No. 86/2006 set aside – Matter remanded to District Judge, Hailakandi to frame specific issue on limitation, permit parties to adduce evidence, and decide afresh – Expeditious disposal directed.

Taxation Law – Andhra Pradesh VAT Act – Appeal – Rejection at Admission Stage – Delay in Filing Appeal – Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected appeal filed with delay of 2 years 4 months and 20 days against consequential assessment order – Petitioner pleaded non-service of show cause notice and assessment order – Held: Explanation not satisfactory – Rejection of appeal justified [Paras 5, 9–13].

Service of Notice – Presumption of Knowledge – VAT Proceedings – Show cause notice and assessment order sent by registered post and through departmental staff – Returned with endorsement “no such assessee” and premises found locked – Petitioner failed to intimate closure or change of address – Held: Service procedure under Rule 64 AP VAT Rules duly followed – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected [Paras 6, 10–12].

Delay and Laches – Writ Jurisdiction – Assessee sleeping over statutory remedy – Petitioner had earlier pursued appellate remedy diligently but failed to explain prolonged inaction after remand – Receipt of demand notice dated 14.09.2017 unexplained – Delay held fatal – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 10–12].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Alleged Violation – No Merit – Assessment passed after following statutory procedure – Non-participation by assessee attributable to its own conduct – No violation of principles of natural justice established [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Limited Interference in Fiscal Matters – Order rejecting appeal on limitation neither arbitrary nor illegal – No perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Order dated 12.12.2017 upheld – No costs – All pending interlocutory applications closed.