Tort Law – Electrocution – Death due to high-voltage transmission line – Compensation – Deceased TV cable operator died due to electric shock while repairing cable on rooftop – Trial Court dismissed suit on conjecture that 132 KV line could not cause such death – First Appellate Court reversed findings and decreed suit – Held: Death due to electrocution proved by ocular and medical evidence – Trial Court’s reasoning based on assumptions unsustainable [Paras 2–4, 7–8].

Electricity Law – High-voltage transmission lines – Statutory and non-delegable duty – Electricity supplier under obligation to maintain safe clearances and remove obstructions – Evidence showed tree touching/dangerously close to 132 KV line creating lethal induction zone – Breach of statutory duty established [Paras 8–10].

Strict Liability – Hazardous activity – Transmission of electricity – Electricity inherently dangerous commodity – Once death due to electrocution established, liability of electricity authority arises irrespective of negligence – Burden on authority to show absence of liability – Failure to discharge burden – Reliance placed on M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari [Paras 10–11].

Contributory Negligence – Plea rejected – Victim engaged in lawful occupation on rooftop – Cannot be expected to foresee induction hazard from negligently maintained transmission line – Duty of safety rests on electricity authority and cannot be shifted to victim [Para 12].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness testimony – Departmental records – Eye-witness corroborated by medical evidence and site plan – Defence of no tripping on line disbelieved due to discrepancies and overwriting in departmental records – Absence of tripping not determinative where induction possible [Paras 8–9].

Compensation – Assessment – Multiplier method – First Appellate Court applied principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC and Pranay Sethi – Notional income, future prospects and conventional heads correctly assessed – Quantum neither excessive nor arbitrary [Para 13].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No substantial question of law – Findings of First Appellate Court based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled law – High Court not justified in interfering with concurrent and reasoned findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani affirmed – No order as to costs.

Education Law – Fee Regulation – Mid-course Enhancement of Fees – Self-financing Engineering Colleges – Students admitted for B.Tech. batch 2023–2027 challenged applicability of revised fee ceiling notification dated 16.10.2023 – Primary contention confined to applicability and not legality of notification – Challenge to notification itself abandoned [Paras 33].

AICTE Act, 1987 and Regulations, 1994 – Fee Fixation – Regulation 7 – Fee to be fixed by State Level Committee – Fees to be intimated in advance for entire course but payable year-wise or semester-wise – Fee structure subject to ceiling fixed by competent authority – Held: Fee structure not indivisible and may be revised subject to statutory framework [Paras 34–38, 45–46].

Prospectus – Contractual Nature – Reservation of Right to Revise Fees – Prospectus expressly stated that fee structure was subject to change as per Government decisions – Students admitted with notice of such condition – Held: Students bound by contractual terms voluntarily accepted at the time of admission [Paras 41, 50–51].

Government Notification – Power to Revise Fee Ceiling – Section 21, General Clauses Act – Power to issue notification includes power to amend or supersede earlier notifications – State competent to revise upper fee ceiling after seven years – Notification dated 16.10.2023 issued in supersession of earlier orders and effective from date of issuance [Paras 42–44].

Prospective vs. Retrospective Operation – Interpretation of “with effect from academic year 2023–2024” – Academic year comprising multiple semesters – Fee payable semester-wise – Implementation from second semester (January 2024) not retrospective – Enhancement held prospective and legally permissible [Paras 45, 48–49].

Expression “To be admitted” – Interpretation – Expression used to identify category of students and not to restrict applicability only to future admissions – Explicit stipulation regarding effective date prevails over ambiguous language – Intention of notification held clear [Paras 47, 49].

Judicial Precedents – Distinguishability – Shanker Doon case and Bindiya Khatri case held inapplicable – Rendered under different statutory frameworks with express statutory prohibitions on fee revision for existing students – No such bar under West Bengal regime [Paras 52–54].

Equitable Considerations – Financial Hardship – No Ground to Avoid Contractual or Statutory Obligations – Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to rewrite contract or negate Government-mandated fee revision [Paras 51].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Notification dated 16.10.2023 validly applicable to petitioners from academic year 2023–2024 – No arbitrariness or illegality found – Prayer for stay rejected [Paras 55–56].

Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Police Personnel – Allegation of Corruption – Reliance on Electronic Evidence – CD Not Proved – Non-Examination of Complainant – Violation of Natural Justice – Enquiry Vitiated – Departmental proceedings founded solely on alleged video CD purportedly showing acceptance of bribe – CD neither exhibited nor proved during enquiry – Complainant who allegedly recorded video not examined – Respondent not supplied CD nor given opportunity to rebut contents – Findings based on unproved and derivative material – Held: Enquiry suffers from foundational defects and violates principles of natural justice [Paras 36–40, 42].

Disciplinary Proceedings vis-à-vis Criminal Acquittal – Effect of Acquittal Based on Inadmissibility of Evidence – Criminal case and departmental enquiry founded on same CD – Criminal court held electronic record inadmissible for want of original device, Section 65-B certificate and authenticity – Acquittal affirmed by High Court – Though departmental proceedings not barred per se after acquittal, where acquittal is based on unreliability of foundational material, disciplinary authority must assess existence of independent evidence – No substantive material remaining once CD excluded – Charge unsustainable [Paras 41–42].

Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 – Rule 16(iii) – Scope and Limitations – Rule permits reliance on prior statements where witness cannot be procured without undue delay – Cannot be invoked to dispense with proof of primary incriminating material – Rule does not cure defect where very basis of charge is unproved – Reliance on Rule 16(iii) misplaced [Paras 39–40].

Standard of Proof in Departmental Enquiry – Preponderance of Probabilities – Limits – Though standard of proof is lower than criminal trial, material relied upon must still be legally admissible and put to delinquent officer – Findings cannot rest on material neither proved nor supplied – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence even in departmental proceedings [Paras 37–38, 42].

Parity – Co-Delinquents – Relevance – Other officials allegedly involved in same incident either exonerated or granted relief by Tribunal – Allegations and evidence common – Selective sustainment of punishment against respondent without distinguishing material unjustified – Parity relevant though not determinative [Para 43].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Matters – Scope under Article 226 – Tribunal confined itself to examining existence of legally sustainable evidence and fairness of process – No re-appreciation of evidence as appellate authority – Interference justified where findings based on no evidence – High Court declined to interfere with Tribunal’s order [Paras 35, 45–46].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of CAT dated 02.08.2016 upheld – Departmental proceedings and penalties quashed – No order as to costs.

Child Custody – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Section 6 – Natural Guardian – Father as natural guardian of minor son – Right not absolute – Subject to welfare of child – Section 13 mandates welfare of minor as paramount consideration – Custody cannot be claimed as a matter of right [Paras 7–10].

Custody of Minor – Welfare Principle – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court duty to assess physical, mental, moral and emotional well-being of child – Financial superiority of one parent not decisive – Welfare to be assessed holistically – Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction keeping child’s best interest in view [Paras 10–11, 15].

Father Living with Another Woman – Effect on Custody – Appellant admitted relationship and cohabitation with another woman as second wife without divorce – Conduct amounting to cruelty and misconduct – Relevant factor disentitling father from custody – Grant of custody in such circumstances not in welfare of child [Paras 13–15].

Second Marriage / Live-in Relationship – Impact on Child – Though second marriage per se does not bar custody, it is an important factor – Child cannot be placed in uncertain environment with stepmother when secure and settled with biological mother – Supreme Court precedents applied [Paras 14–15].

Mother’s Custody – Stability and Emotional Security – Minor residing with mother since separation – Receiving love, care and stable environment – No material to show mother unfit – Custody with mother held to be in best interest of child [Paras 13, 15–16].

Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – No perversity or legal infirmity in findings – Appeal under Section 19(1) Family Courts Act dismissed – Family Court judgment affirmed [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 21.04.2022 of Family Court, Bemetara upheld – Custody of minor Master Yash Joshi to remain with mother – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Jurisdiction – Section 378 CrPC (Post-2005 Amendment) – Trial Court acquitted accused of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC (all bailable offences) – State preferred appeal before Sessions Court – Sessions Court reversed acquittal and convicted accused – High Court held that in view of Section 378(1)(b) CrPC, appeal against acquittal in bailable offences lies only before the High Court and not before the Court of Sessions – Held: Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction and its judgment is nullity in law [Paras 12–18].

Jurisdiction – Order without authority of law – Effect – Appeal entertained and decided by a Court lacking jurisdiction – Such judgment is void ab initio – Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court and violation of Article 21 of Constitution – Held: Judgment of first appellate court liable to be set aside on this ground alone [Paras 15–18].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279, 304-A IPC – Standard of proof – Mere occurrence of accident resulting in death or injuries insufficient to sustain conviction – Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur not applicable stricto sensu in criminal trials – Prosecution must establish rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Burden not discharged by prosecution [Paras 22–23].

Evidence – Appreciation – Interested and unreliable witnesses – PWs.1 to 3 occupants of the car involved in accident and hence interested witnesses – PW2 (driver of car) not tendered for cross-examination despite opportunity – PW3 failed to identify accused or manner of accident – PW4 reached spot after accident and not an eye-witness – None of the witnesses conclusively proved that accused was driving the bus or acted rashly and negligently – Trial Court’s view held to be a possible and reasonable view [Paras 6–8, 25].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate court can reverse acquittal only if trial court’s view is perverse or no reasonable view is possible on evidence – Trial court had properly appreciated evidence and extended benefit of doubt – Sessions Court reversed acquittal without cogent reasons – Held: Reversal unsustainable in law [Paras 19–21, 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2013 passed by II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, set aside – Judgment of acquittal dated 07.03.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Bantwal restored and confirmed – Accused acquitted of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Amicus Curiae fee of Rs.10,000/- awarded.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal Set Aside – Dishonour of Cheque – Trial Court ignored documentary evidence (Cheque Return Register and Memo) establishing date of knowledge of dishonour – Complainant issued statutory notice within 15 days from said date – Held: Trial Court committed legal error by failing to consider Exhibits 3 and 6 which directly impacted limitation and compliance with Section 138(b) – Acquittal set aside – Case remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 8–19, 22]

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Trial Court failed to consider material documentary exhibits forming part of record – No findings recorded regarding Exhibits 3 and 6 – Selective appreciation of evidence vitiated judgment – Held: Judgment based on incomplete analysis is legally unsustainable – Remand warranted for fresh decision [Paras 15–19, 21–23]

Limitation – Section 138 NI Act – Date of Dishonour vs. Date of Knowledge – Distinction between date of dishonour of cheque and date of receipt of intimation by payee is material – Statutory notice issued based on date of knowledge supported by documentary evidence – Trial Court erred by failing to account for this aspect – Legal notice held to be within limitation [Paras 9–10, 16]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 30.03.2016 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh adjudication after proper appreciation of entire documentary and oral evidence – Trial Court directed to pass a reasoned judgment uninfluenced by present observations and to dispose of the case expeditiously [Paras 20–23]

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Dying Declaration – Acquittal – Accused convicted by Trial Court for murder of deceased by setting her ablaze after alleged quarrel arising out of illicit relationship – Prosecution case resting mainly on dying declaration and medical evidence – On appeal, High Court finds that there were no eyewitnesses and neighbours (PWs.1 to 3) did not support prosecution case regarding presence of accused at scene – Last seen theory not established – Motive of illicit relationship not proved by cogent evidence – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence not complete and incapable of excluding other hypotheses – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10–14, 29–32].

Evidence Act – Section 32 – Dying Declaration – Reliability and admissibility – Dying declaration recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector in hospital allegedly in presence of doctor – Doctor failed to certify mental and physical fitness of deceased in a satisfactory manner – No mention of vital parameters such as blood pressure, pulse rate or treatment administered – Duty doctor and case-sheets not produced – Deceased had suffered 80–85% burn injuries including face and lips – Mother and sister of deceased stated that deceased was not in a position to speak when they visited hospital – Held: Dying declaration not proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful – Cannot be sole basis for conviction [Paras 15–27].

Witness Testimony – Hostile witnesses – Neighbours as chance witnesses – PWs.2 and 3, neighbours of deceased, stated that they only heard cries and saw deceased with burn injuries – Categorically denied seeing accused at spot or running away from house – Prosecution version of last seen circumstance disbelieved – Evidence held insufficient to connect accused with crime [Paras 13–14].

Motive – Proof – Illicit relationship – Alleged motive based on illicit relationship between accused and deceased and objections by parents of accused – Neither parents of accused examined nor independent evidence led to establish motive – Held: Motive not proved and cannot by itself sustain conviction in absence of other reliable circumstances [Para 12].

Appeal – Criminal Appeal against conviction – Interference by High Court – Trial Court relied heavily on doubtful dying declaration and ignored material contradictions and omissions in prosecution evidence – Failure to scrutinize circumstantial evidence in strict legal standard – Held: Judgment of conviction and sentence liable to be set aside – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 28–32].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2018 and sentence dated 31.08.2018 set aside – Accused acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC – Accused to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Order regarding disposal of properties maintained.

Tenancy – Eviction – Damage to Premises – Permanent Structure – Lease Permitting “Some Changes” – Scope of Clause – Respondent-tenant made material alterations including demolition of internal walls and creation of new entry without landlady’s permission – Held: Clause 5 of lease permitting “some changes” for hospital use cannot be interpreted as blanket permission for structural changes – Removal of internal walls and making new entry amounts to damage and erection of permanent structure within meaning of Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of Bombay Rent Act – Appeal Court’s interpretation of Clause 5 found to be perverse – Eviction decree restored on these grounds [Paras 13–24].

Eviction – Change of User – Lease Clause Allowing Conversion from Residential to Hospital Use – No Violation – Clause 5 of lease expressly permitted tenant to use residential portion as hospital – Held: Change of user not made out as per Section 13(1)(k) – Concurrent finding of both courts upheld [Paras 12, 21–22].

Eviction – Bonafide Requirement – Availability of Alternative Premises to Landlady – No Greater Hardship Shown – Landlady had already obtained possession of multiple tenanted premises – Concurrent finding that requirement not bonafide upheld – No interference under Section 115 CPC warranted [Para 11].

Eviction – Nuisance – Allegations of Medical Waste and Misconduct Not Substantiated – Landlady failed to produce independent evidence or witnesses – Allegations were uncorroborated and denied – Concurrent finding of no nuisance upheld [Para 12].

Scope of Revision under Section 115 CPC – Interference Limited to Jurisdictional Errors and Perversity – Appeal Court's findings on permanent structure and damage found perverse and based on misreading of lease clause – Justified interference under Section 115 CPC – Findings on other grounds not interfered with [Paras 10, 18–20].

Decision: Civil Revision Application partly allowed – Appellate Court judgment dated 22/09/2006 set aside to the extent of reversal on grounds under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) – Trial Court’s eviction decree restored on those grounds – Respondent directed to vacate suit premises within 6 weeks, subject to affidavit of undertaking [Paras 24–28].

Income-tax – Nil Withholding Certificate – Section 197 – Rule 28AA – Rejection of application – Mechanical approach by Assessing Officer – Assessing Officer rejected application solely on ground that determination of income at Section 197 stage is premature and tax must be deducted to protect revenue – Held: Such reasoning contrary to statutory mandate of Rule 28AA which requires consideration of estimated income, tax liability of previous four years, existing liabilities and advance tax – Non-consideration of mandatory parameters vitiates decision-making process [Paras 20–26, 30–32].

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – India–UK DTAA – Fees for Technical Services – Managerial services – “Make available” test – Petitioner providing routine managerial and administrative support services to Indian subsidiary on cost-to-cost basis – ITAT in petitioner’s own case for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 held such services not taxable as FTS under Article 13 – Held: Until set aside, Tribunal’s findings are binding on Revenue authorities [Paras 23, 26–28].

Judicial Discipline – Binding nature of appellate orders – Filing of appeal – Effect – Revenue contended that appeals against ITAT orders were pending – Held: Mere filing of appeal does not render appellate order inoperative – Authorities bound to follow decisions of higher appellate forums as per Kamlakshi Finance Corporation principle [Paras 26–28].

Administrative Law – Speaking order – Section 197 proceedings – Scope – Assessing Officer must record application of mind to statutory factors under Rule 28AA – Order stating that assessment is not possible and deduction is required to safeguard revenue does not meet statutory requirements – Non-application of mind renders order arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 30–32].

Remand – Section 197 application – Although impugned order and certificate quashed for failure to follow Rule 28AA – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law – Direction to decide afresh within four weeks and without being influenced by pendency of appeals unless ITAT orders are set aside or varied [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Impugned order dated 09.06.2025 and certificate dated 30.07.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication under Rule 28AA – Writ petition disposed of.