Property Dispute & Identification – Appellants and 1^st respondent contest over 1 acre and 19 cents of land, part of larger land acquisition for Kannur Airport – Respondents claim land based on purchases from 1986 onward, while appellants claim based on a 1947 partition decree and subsequent sales – Neither party able to conclusively prove title over disputed land leading to deposition of compensation by authorities.

Judicial Process & Mismanagement – Reference Court failed to adequately address discrepancies and procedural errors surrounding the Advocate Commissioner’s report – High Court critiques reliance on insufficiently substantiated Commission Report and Plan (Exts.X1 and X2) – High Court finds the Reference Court neglected directives to re-evaluate the Commissioner’s findings, resulting in flawed judgment favoring the 1^st respondent.

High Court Directions – Judgment and decree of the Reference Court set aside – Case remanded for fresh disposal with directions to re-evaluate the Commission Report and plan accurately using the proper records and land boundaries defined in relevant title deeds and the final decree of a 1947 partition suit.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Alleged involvement in stolen vehicle case – Petitioner named Avishek Singhal implicated on basis of co-accused’s statement in Mirik Police Station Case No. 58/09 dated 08.08.2009 under Sections 411, 413, 414, 468, 471 IPC – High Court finds no substantive evidence corroborating the co-accused’s statement or connecting petitioner to the crime – Proceedings quashed against the petitioner due to insufficiency of evidence. [Paras 1-16]

Evidentiary Value of Co-Accused’s Statement – Held – Statements of a co-accused are not sufficient to frame charge unless corroborated by other substantial evidence – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgments in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and others [(2019) 16 SCC 547] and Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 7 SCC 337], which clarify that confessions or statements to police are inadmissible under Sections 24, 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. [Paras 5, 7, 12-13]

Decision – Application for quashing of proceedings granted – Based on principles laid down by the Supreme Court, lack of recovery from petitioner’s residence and absence of corroborative evidence led to quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in connection with the alleged stolen vehicle case. [Paras 14-16]

Civil Law – Authenticity of Document – Dismissal of application for signature comparison by trial court due to lack of comparable signatures provided by petitioner – Revision against order dismissing application in O.S.No.33 of 2015 for recovery based on alleged forged promissory note – High Court finds procedural error by not allowing submission of comparable signatures that could potentially affect substantive justice – Held, trial court directed to conduct signature comparison upon submission of original documents by petitioner, granting procedural leeway to achieve substantive justice – If documents are not produced, trial to proceed without comparison [Paras 1-8]

Criminal Law – Negligence and Causation – Conviction under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence – Appellant convicted for causing death by rash and negligent riding, hitting the victim with his motorcycle – Evidence supported by eyewitnesses and corroborated by victim’s wife and son – High Court upholds conviction but modifies sentence. [Paras 3-10]

Sentencing – Modification of Penalty – Original sentence of simple imprisonment for 1 year modified – Fine increased from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000; default in payment results in simple imprisonment for six months – Imprisonment sentence set aside – Fine to be paid as compensation to victim’s family. [Paras 11-13]

Legal Principles: Section 304A IPC requires demonstration of death caused by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

High Court has authority to modify sentences within limits prescribed by law – High Court can enhance sentences in appeal. [Paras 11-12]

Criminal Law – Foreigners Act – Conviction under Section 14C – Appeal against Trial Court’s conviction for harboring foreigners without valid documents – High Court finds insufficient evidence of appellant’s knowledge or involvement in the harboring of foreigners – Held, conviction set aside – Acquittal of appellant from charges under Section 14C of Foreigners Act. [Paras 1-22]

Evidentiary Assessment – Lack of direct evidence tying appellant to knowledge of foreigners’ illegal status – Supreme Court precedent emphasized abetment requires active encouragement, instigation, or aiding – No evidence presented that appellant engaged in such activities – Noted passivity and lack of proactive involvement do not constitute abetment under Section 14C – Acquittal on grounds of failure to prove abetment. [Paras 14-16]

Reference to Supreme Court decision in Abinash Dixit Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, where mere passivity was ruled insufficient for abetment under Foreigners Act – Applied to current case to overturn conviction. [Para 13]

Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Criminal Revisional application against charges of unauthorized construction under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – Petitioners, serving as professional directors not involved in day-to-day operations or construction activities of the company, challenged their wrongful implication in the case due to their positions – Held, FIR and charge-sheet against petitioners quashed due to lack of specific allegations or evidence implicating them in the unauthorized construction, recognized by court as abuse of legal process – Construction had all necessary permissions including a completion certificate and no objection certificates for fire safety, thus no unauthorized construction was proved against the petitioners – FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioners quashed. [Paras 1-19]

Role of Directors in Company Liability – Discussion – Examined roles of professional directors in relation to corporate liability for unauthorized construction – Directors not involved in day-to-day affairs or decisions related to construction work not liable under Section 401A – Importance of specific role identification in prosecuting directors under corporate liability emphasized. [Paras 7, 12-13]

Legal Principles on Corporate Director Liability – Cited precedents clarifying non-liability of directors not engaged in day-to-day operations of the company or specifically implicated in the alleged wrongdoing – Reliance on Sunita Palita and Others Vs. Panchami Stone Quarry and other relevant judgments upholding the principles of specificity in allegations required for directorial liability in corporate crimes. [Para 8, 13-14]

Decision: The Court quashed the FIR and Charge-Sheet against the petitioners, acknowledging the abuse of process and absence of specific evidence against them concerning the alleged unauthorized construction. [Para 15]

Litigation Costs and Maintenance Pendente Lite - High Court reviews orders concerning payment of litigation costs and adjustments of maintenance payments - Considers legal provisions under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and precedents set by the Supreme Court for determining maintenance and litigation expenses - Litigation costs should be prioritized and awarded from the outset of proceedings, especially when the wife is the respondent in a matrimonial suit - Maintenance includes necessities for a decent living but excludes litigation costs, thus separate consideration is required for both .

Adjustment of Awards - Trial court's method of adjusting maintenance payments against litigation costs deemed inappropriate - Litigation costs are awarded to enable a litigant to pursue or defend a suit without undue hardship and should not be offset by maintenance awards, which are meant for basic living expenses .

Proceedings in Matrimonial Suits - Emphasized that matrimonial disputes should be viewed with a consideration of human aspects beyond legal technicalities - In cases where litigation costs ordered are not paid, proceedings should not continue, ensuring compliance with court orders is essential for the continuation of the suit.

Decision and Modification of Lower Court Orders – Adjustments made to litigation costs awarded from Rs. 3,000 per month to Rs. 2,000 per month effective from the date of appellate order – Appellate decision mandates compliance with payment of adjusted litigation costs for continuance of matrimonial proceedings in the Lower Court .

Decision : The court modified the litigation costs awarded to the respondent, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,000 per month instead of Rs. 3,000, citing the need for reasonable and just enforcement tailored to the case specifics

Gratuity Payment Dispute – Retired municipal employee, Amiya Kumar Roy, did not receive his gratuity upon retirement on February 28, 2018 – Initially sought judicial remedy resulting in an order on August 5, 2021, mandating the municipality to pay the gratuity within eight weeks; the question of interest was left open – Municipality later challenged the additional claim for interest on the delayed payment, citing doctrines of waiver and estoppel [Paras 1-6].

Legal Principles Applied – Application of doctrines of waiver and estoppel rejected by the High Court, aligning with another similar case (WPA 26043 of 2023) – High Court reiterated that financial constraints of the employer (Municipality) do not justify the delay in gratuity payment, emphasizing the statutory entitlement of an employee to interest on delayed gratuity under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which specifies a maximum interest rate of 10% per annum by the Central Government [Paras 7-16, 19].

Court’s Decision – High Court affirmed the lower court’s order to pay 10% per annum interest from the due date to the actual payment date on delayed gratuity – Set aside additional interest of 3% (making 13%) imposed for further delays post-judgment – Held that gratuity payment with interest is a statutory right that supports the dignity and survival of retired employees [Paras 15-25].

Family Law - Divorce - Appeal against Family Court’s judgment dismissing divorce petition based on alleged cruelty by the wife - Family Court found no sufficient evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment by respondent; however, High Court reverses decision, citing mental cruelty due to false criminal accusations and prolonged legal battle - Held, marriage irretrievably broken, decree of divorce granted on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [Paras 1-29]

Evidence and Testimony - Lack of corroborative evidence from the respondent on allegations of dowry harassment against the appellant and his family - High Court notes previous acquittal of appellant in related criminal proceedings, undermining credibility of respondent’s allegations - Held, false criminal charges against spouse can constitute mental cruelty justifying divorce. [Paras 20-22]

Maintenance and Financial Support - Discussion on maintenance payments - Appellant’s obligations towards maintenance addressed, with direct deductions from his pension - Execution proceedings for arrears in maintenance are acknowledged but left to be resolved in pending execution proceedings. [Paras 10-11, 27]

Decision: Judgment of Family Court reversed – Decree of divorce granted on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal disposed of with all pending applications. [Para 32]