Mining Law – Vehicle Seizure – Authorized Officer – Seizure upheld – Petitioner challenged seizure of Tata Signa Hyva truck on the ground that it was illegally seized by the Tahasildar – Held: Though the raid was supervised by the Tahasildar, the seizure was carried out by a Sub-Inspector of Police, a competent authority under Rule 51(1)(ii) of the OMMC Rules – Thus, seizure cannot be invalidated on ground of lack of authority [Paras 6-7] –

Due Process – Failure to Initiate Proceedings – Petitioner’s vehicle detained for nearly five months without FIR, penalty notice, or confiscation proceeding – Held: Authorities failed to initiate proceedings under MMDR Act or Rule 51 of the OMMC Rules – Continued detention of vehicle without adjudicative process violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution [Paras 8-10, 15] –

Seized Vehicles – Judicial Approach – Court followed settled law that seized vehicles should not be indefinitely detained – Referenced Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat and Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam – Held: Prolonged custody causes deterioration and defeats owner’s right to livelihood – Detention must be justified by ongoing proceedings or evidence needs [Paras 11-13] –

Conditional Release – Directions Issued – Truck ordered to be released to petitioner on conditions including production of documents, submission of photographs, and furnishing of security bond of ₹2,00,000 – Authorities directed to complete penalty or confiscation proceedings within 8 weeks – Court held that indeterminate delay violates rule of law and deprives petitioner of legal remedy [Paras 16-18] –

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Seized vehicle to be released forthwith on compliance with conditions – State directed to initiate and conclude appropriate proceedings without delay.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegation of Sexual Harassment by Child Welfare Committee Chairman – Lack of Sexual Intent – Petitioner, a statutory authority under Child Welfare Committee, was alleged to have made sexually coloured remarks during counselling of two minor girls – Statements attributed to the petitioner included reference to the girls’ relationships and questioning their attire – Held: Alleged words, though intemperate and inappropriate in tone, do not amount to sexually coloured remarks or indicate sexual intent – Interaction occurred in official capacity and in the presence of another counsellor – Prosecution under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 6-10]

POCSO Act – Section 11 r/w Section 12 – Requirement of Sexual Intent – To attract offence of sexual harassment under POCSO, act must involve sexual intent – Mere inappropriate or offensive language, without such intent, held insufficient – Petitioner’s conduct, viewed in totality, lacked sexual intent and did not amount to harassment under the Act [Paras 8-10]

Abuse of Process – Frivolous Prosecution – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioner alleged that complaint was motivated by enmity after he reported sexual exploitation of minor girls by their lovers – Court accepted that prosecution appeared retaliatory and not based on genuine grievance – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of judicial process [Paras 5, 10]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 2457/2022 and 2464/2022 allowed – Proceedings in SC Nos. 466/2021 and 467/2021 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery quashed

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Reception of Additional Documents – Delay and Admissibility – Judicial Discretion – Trial Court allowed plaintiff’s petition to receive certain documents obtained under RTI Act during 2021–22 though produced belatedly in 2024 – Revision petitioner contended that documents were neither certified nor originals and delay was unexplained – Held: Procedural rules are handmaids of justice and cannot be used to defeat substantive rights – Delay in production not fatal unless it causes serious prejudice or necessitates a de novo trial – Order of trial court allowing reception of documents upheld [Paras 8–11].

Evidence – Admissibility vs. Reception – Stage of Consideration – Relevancy and admissibility of documents are distinct issues – At the stage of reception, the court is only concerned with whether documents may be taken on record; their evidentiary value can be decided at the trial – Objections regarding proof under Sections 63–65 of Evidence Act premature [Para 12].

Procedural Law – Delay – Liberal Approach – Costs as Remedy – Court emphasized that procedural law should facilitate justice and not obstruct it – Though delay was established, it did not justify exclusion of material evidence – Delay compensable by costs – Plaintiff directed to pay ₹5,000 to revision petitioner to offset inconvenience caused [Paras 10–13].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference under Article 227 – Scope – High Court declined to interfere under Article 227, finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s reasoning – Observed that the trial court’s omission to record elaborate reasons was not sufficient to vitiate the order when conclusion was otherwise just and equitable [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 28.03.2025 in I.A. No. 788 of 2024 upheld – Plaintiff directed to pay ₹5,000 as costs to revision petitioner – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 13–End].

Banking Law – Pledge of Gold Ornaments – Right of Redemption – Petitioner availed gold loan repayable by 12.01.2025 – Bank conducted auction on 17.01.2025 without observing 30-day post-maturity redemption period stipulated in contract – Held: Premature auction violated Section 176 of Contract Act and terms of pledge – Petitioner’s offer to pay dues two days prior to auction showed intent to redeem [Paras 6–9]

Fair Procedure – Auction Transparency – Principles of Natural Justice – Auction process lacked transparency – No reserve price disclosed – No opportunity given to Petitioner to participate – Bank refused post-auction disclosure of bidder details – Court found process vitiated by opacity and procedural unfairness – Auction set aside [Paras 10–11]

Lien and Appropriation – Adjustment of Surplus Proceeds – Bank adjusted surplus auction proceeds from gold loan against Petitioner’s unrelated housing loan dues – Held: Where sale itself is vitiated, consequential appropriation is invalid – Adjustment set aside – Bank may recover dues via separate proceedings in accordance with law [Paras 12]

Public Law Duty of Banks – Writ Jurisdiction – Despite private contractual origin, Bank actions held amenable to writ jurisdiction due to statutory flavour and fiduciary character – Writ maintainable to ensure compliance with fair process and banking norms [Para 13]

Decision:

Writ Petition partly allowed –

(a) Auction dated 17.01.2025 quashed

(b) If jewellery remains in specie, to be returned upon payment of lawful dues

(c) If jewellery sold, Bank to refund higher of ₹1,45,000 or market value as of auction date with 6% interest p.a. from 17.01.2025

(d) All appropriation of proceeds toward other liabilities (including housing loan) reversed – Bank may pursue such recovery separately as per law [Paras 14]

Local Bodies – Panchayat Jurisdiction – Obstruction of Pathway – Petitioners issued notice by Gram Panchayat to remove obstruction allegedly placed on public pathway – Petitioners claim the pathway lies within their granted land – Dispute also pending in O.S. No. 299/2017 before Civil Court – Held: Since matter involves disputed questions of title and access, and civil suit is pending, parties must maintain status quo [Paras 1–4, 7]

Civil Procedure – Overlapping Jurisdiction – Parallel Proceedings – Pending civil litigation between parties on the same issue of public pathway and property ownership – Court held that administrative directions by Panchayat must await outcome of civil suit – Interim arrangement to remove obstruction only to facilitate access pending adjudication [Paras 4, 7, 9]

Commissioner’s Report – Factual Assessment – Court-appointed Commissioner confirmed presence of obstruction (laterite bricks) on disputed pathway used by respondent and other residents – Court relied on Commissioner’s factual findings to issue interim relief and protect access of residents [Paras 6–7]

Interim Directions – Maintenance of Access – Petitioners directed to remove obstruction on disputed passage pending civil court decision – Failure to comply will authorize Panchayat to remove obstruction and recover costs – Rights and contentions of parties reserved for adjudication in O.S. No. 299/2017 [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioners directed to remove obstructions within one week – Panchayat authorized to act if petitioners default – All issues left open to be decided in pending civil suit [Paras 9–10]

Section 84 of the A.P. Endowments Act - Religious and Charitable Trusts – Unauthorized Occupation – Tenants Treated as Encroachers – Endowments Tribunal’s Eviction Order Partly Upheld – Appellants were in occupation of shop premises forming part of trust property endowed under registered Will of 1958 – Trustees had granted lease but no formal lease deed existed – Tribunal found the appellants to be encroachers under Section 83 of the A.P. Endowments Act and directed eviction and payment of damages – Appellate Court found that original trustees had already transferred rights to another religious institution via registered settlement deed – All legal challenges to that transfer (including writ petitions and earlier CMAs) had been withdrawn – Held: Appellants’ lessor had given up any claim over property, and appellants could no longer assert tenancy rights – However, in view of long possession, nature of business, and payment of rents, damages awarded by Tribunal were set aside – Eviction upheld with two-month grace period to vacate [Paras 1–6]

Trust Law – Transfer of Trust Property – Validity of Settlement Deed – Effect of Withdrawal of Legal Proceedings – Settlement deed in favour of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri was challenged in O.S. No.144/2010 and W.P. No.31056/2010 – Both proceedings withdrawn – Held: Withdrawal of legal challenge affirmed the validity of the settlement deed – Appellants claiming under erstwhile trustees cannot sustain possession once the transfer stood undisputed [Paras 5–6]

Land Law – Possession Without Title – Unauthorized Occupation After Lessor’s Rights Extinguished – Relief of Damages Denied on Equitable Grounds – Though possession was unauthorized, Court exercised discretion in equity – Found appellants to be small shopkeepers earning livelihood – While eviction confirmed, direction to pay damages of ₹1,000 to ₹2,000 per month as ordered by Tribunal was set aside [Paras 5–6]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal’s order directing eviction confirmed – Direction to pay damages set aside – Appellants to vacate within two months – No order as to costs.

Railway Accidents Claim – Untoward Incident – Bona Fide Passenger – Appellant injured after falling from overcrowded train due to sudden jerk – Tribunal rejected claim alleging self-inflicted injury and contributory negligence – High Court held that presence of valid journey ticket and contemporaneous medical and police records establish bona fide passengership and untoward incident – Rejection of claim was based on misdirection in law and contrary to evidentiary burden under Section 124A [Paras 2, 12, 15–17, 21–22]

Strict Liability – Compensation under Section 124A – Court reiterated that liability of Railways is strict and automatic upon proof of injury arising out of untoward incident during lawful travel – Exceptions to liability must be narrowly construed – No cogent evidence produced by Railways to attract any statutory exception – Tribunal’s finding overturned [Paras 13–14, 23–24]

Standard of Proof – Evidentiary Burden – Recovery of valid ticket and corroborative public documents like medical and police reports sufficient to establish claimant’s case – Burden then shifts to Railways to disprove claim – Reliance by Railways on speculative DRM inquiry and absence of Alarm Chain Pulling held insufficient – Appeal allowed and compensation awarded [Paras 19–22]

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned order of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 06.01.2020 set aside – Appellant entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest from date of claim till payment – Amount to be deposited within three months before the Tribunal for disbursal [Paras 26–28]

Company Law – Misfeasance proceedings under Section 542 of Companies Act – Non-executive nominee directors’ application for deletion at threshold rejected – Interim freezing orders vacated – Matter to proceed to trial [Paras 29–41].

Company Law – Fraudulent Conduct – Section 542 of Companies Act, 1956 – Interim Relief Partially Granted – Non-executive nominee directors Srinivasan and Sreenivasulu sought to strike out their names from misfeasance proceedings, alleging lack of specific pleadings and no evidence of fraudulent participation – Held: Though pleadings lack specificity, presence in board meetings and fiduciary obligations as directors justify trial – Relief under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC declined [Paras 29–32, 38–39].

Nominee Directors – Fiduciary Liability – Directors Cannot Evade Corporate Responsibility – Court held that nominee directors, though non-executive, fall within ambit of persons "knowingly party" under Section 542 and cannot escape scrutiny solely on designation – Absence of express allegations insufficient for rejection at threshold [Paras 20–24, 36–38].

Pleadings in Fraud Cases – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Liberal Approach for Official Liquidator Permitted – Court acknowledged limitations on Official Liquidator's access to internal records and granted permission to file additional affidavit with specific allegations before trial – Leave granted to applicants to reapply for deletion if no evidence is brought during trial [Paras 30–31, 39].

Interim Orders – Freezing of Assets – Interim Orders Vacated – Considering hardship to applicants and lack of prima facie evidence, the Court vacated prior ex parte orders freezing their bank/demat accounts and restraining them from dealing with movable/immovable assets – Balance of convenience not in favour of continuation [Para 40].

Final Decision – Applications Partly Allowed – Interim freezing orders vacated – Misfeasance proceedings to continue – Official Liquidator permitted to amend pleadings with specific charges; applicants allowed to reapply for deletion after evidence stage [Para 41].

Motor Accident – Determination of Income – Presumptive Basis – Admissibility – Deceased was owner of loader vehicle and paying monthly EMI of ₹18,250 – Tribunal presumed additional earnings of ₹7,000/month to support his family of five dependents – Held: Tribunal justified in estimating income at ₹25,250/month in absence of documentary proof – Supported by SC ruling in Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – No interference warranted [Paras 2, 4, 6–8]

Motor Accident – Future Prospects – Age-based Calculation – Tribunal awarded 40% future prospects though deceased was aged 36 – Under Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claimants were entitled to 50% – Held: Award of 40% is conservative; no scope for reduction – Appeal against adequacy of compensation not sustainable [Paras 3, 9–10]

Compensation – No Deduction Warranted – Tribunal’s Approach Reasonable – Appellant-insurer raised ground that compensation was excessive due to presumed income – Held: Income based on proven expenditure (EMI) and family responsibilities is a valid basis – Future prospects correctly applied – No illegality in award [Paras 4–10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Tribunal’s award of ₹48,56,250/- with 7.5% interest affirmed – Statutory deposit to be remitted to Tribunal forthwith.