Civil Law – Declaration and Injunction – Allegation of Fraudulent Decree – Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by legal heirs of Rugha Ram dismissed – Plaintiffs claimed that Rugha Ram, being of weak mental health, was defrauded into a mutual oral exchange of land for a house – Courts below held no evidence was adduced to prove mental incapacity or fraud – Plaintiffs also failed to implead key person (Mani Ram) in possession of disputed property or summon him as witness – Held: No illegality or perversity in concurrent findings of Courts below – No interference warranted [Paras 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs alleged that decree dated 01.05.1991 was obtained by fraud on mentally weak Rugha Ram – No evidence produced to support allegation of mental weakness or fraud – Plaintiffs failed to discharge burden of proof – Court emphasized that plaintiffs must stand on their own legs to prove fraud, which they failed to do [Paras 5, 7].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Mani Ram, in possession of house as per plaintiffs’ claim, neither impleaded as party nor examined as witness – Court held this failure further weakened the plaintiffs' case – Held: Material witness not examined, undermining plaintiffs' narrative [Para 8].

Res Judicata – Suit challenging validity of earlier decree filed after long delay – No challenge raised by Rugha Ram during his lifetime – Courts found that validity of 1991 decree could not be questioned decades later without proper justification – Plaintiffs estopped from re-agitating settled matter [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Courts below upheld – No merit in allegations of fraud – No interference warranted [Para 9].

Criminal Revision – Discharge - Criminal Conspiracy – Forgery of Land Records – Discharge Rejected – Prima Facie Offence Established – Accused Nos.1 and 9 alleged to have encroached 3.77 acres of government land using a forged patta and false sale deed – The land in question was wrongly shown as private property through impersonation and fabricated documents – Prosecution records including forensic evidence and witness statements established a strong prima facie case against accused Nos.1, 3 and 9 – Held: Rejection of discharge petitions by Special Judge justified – No interference warranted [Paras 5–17].

Forgery – Use of Impersonated Document – Offence Made Out – The prosecution case revealed that Sale Deed No.291/2006 was created using impersonation of CW11 and used to establish false title over government land – Fingerprint and handwriting analysis supported the case – Held: Forgery and use of forged documents prima facie made out – Accused required to stand trial [Paras 12–17].

Criminal Misconduct by Public Servants – Abuse of Position – Support for Fraudulent Land Transfer – Accused public servants including former Tahsildar and Village Officers issued false reports and certificates supporting illegal land possession – Held: Their role in enabling encroachment through official misconduct is clearly supported by material on record – Discharge rightly denied [Para 16].

Discharge of Co-accused – Improper and Premature – Document Writer (A6) Discharged by Special Court – State Challenged – Allegation that A6 prepared and presented forged sale deed while knowing the impersonation – Court found discharge premature – Held: Discharge of 6th accused unsustainable – Order set aside – Directed to face trial [Paras 10, 19].

Decision – Discharge Applications Dismissed for A1, A3, A9 – Discharge of A6 Set Aside – The High Court upheld the dismissal of discharge petitions filed by accused Nos.1, 3 and 9 and directed them to face trial – Allowed the State’s revision and reversed the discharge of 6th accused – Directed the trial court to proceed with trial at the earliest – Observations in the order not binding at trial [Paras 17–20].

Civil Law - Municipal Tender – Challenge to Eligibility Criteria and Marking Scheme – Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners challenged the tender process initiated by MCGM for collection and transportation of municipal solid waste for the period 2025–2032, particularly opposing Corrigendum-III dated 1 July 2025 – Petitioners alleged arbitrary modification of eligibility criteria, introduction of a discretionary marking system, and restriction on Joint Venture bidders – The Court held that the tender terms were within the discretion of the tendering authority, well-reasoned, and supported by legal principles – No mala fides, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety was found – Writ Petitions dismissed [Paras 1, 16, 30].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Experience Requirement of Seven Years – Not Continuous – Petitioners misinterpreted Clause A.1.1 of the tender, alleging that continuous seven-year experience was mandated – Court clarified that requirement was to have completed work(s) of specified value during the past seven years, not over seven consecutive years – Held: Petitioners’ interpretation misplaced; experience condition was neither arbitrary nor new [Paras 17–20].

Scope of Judicial Review – Judicial Restraint in Tender Matters – Court reiterated settled law that the tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements and terms – Courts cannot sit in appeal over decisions unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or actuated by mala fides – Held: MCGM acted within its domain and no interference was warranted under Article 226 [Paras 11–16, 30].

Marking System – Work Plan and Presentation – Not Arbitrary – Petitioners objected to 50% marks being allocated to subjective criteria – Court held that given the turnkey nature of the contract, detailed evaluation was justified – Marking system was structured, criteria-based, and had a rational nexus with project objectives – No unreasonableness or scope for arbitrary exclusion found [Paras 21–27].

Restriction on Joint Ventures – Removed by Corrigendum – Issue Rendered Academic – Petitioners challenged restriction on JV bidders bidding for multiple groups – Court found that Corrigendum-III had already removed such restriction, allowing JV participation across groups, subject to fulfilment of financial and technical eligibility – Objection found baseless [Paras 28–29].

Decision  – No Grounds for Interference – No Element of Arbitrariness or Illegality – Court found that all grounds raised by the Petitioners lacked merit – No violation of Article 14 or public procurement norms – Petitioners failed to establish any procedural impropriety or bias – Petitions dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Bail - Terrorism Case – Bengaluru Riots of 11.08.2020 – Bail Rejected – Sections 16, 18, 20 UAP Act – Accused Nos. 6 & 20 alleged to have conspired, mobilized mobs, vandalized police station, burnt vehicles, and attacked police personnel – Earlier bail rejections upheld by High Court and Supreme Court – Contention of delay in trial and contradictions in witness statements rejected – Court found accused engaged in abuse of process by filing successive bail/discharge pleas to stall trial – Delay attributable to accused, not prosecution – No change in circumstances to warrant bail [Paras 4–15].

Plea of Parity with Co-accused Sentenced to 7 Years on Guilty Plea – Not Applicable – Accused had not pleaded guilty or shown remorse unlike co-accused Nos. 14, 16, 18 – Possible punishment under Section 16 UAP Act includes life imprisonment/death – Premature to assume same sentence – Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb distinguished – Risk to society considered – Bail denied [Paras 16–19].

Criminal Revision – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 304A, 337, 338 IPC – Conviction Affirmed – The accused, driver of a goods auto, caused an accident by driving rashly and negligently despite repeated warnings from passengers to slow down – Accident resulted in death of one passenger and injuries to others – Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused to 8 months SI under Section 304A IPC with fines under Sections 337, 338 IPC and MV Act provisions – Sessions Court confirmed conviction and sentence – High Court held that testimonies of injured eyewitnesses were credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical and documentary evidence – Defence version of sudden braking to avoid collision with oncoming lorry unsupported by evidence – No error or perversity in concurrent findings – Conviction sustained [Paras 15-30].

Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence – Section 304A IPC – Sentence Reduced from Eight Months to Three Months – Considering mitigating factors such as absence of intoxication, lapse of 18 years since accident, no prior criminal record, age of accused, and being sole breadwinner – High Court reduced sentence to 3 months SI while affirming other sentences and fines imposed – Period already undergone to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence [Paras 31-39].

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Disciplinary Proceedings Based Solely on Police Confession – Dismissal Set Aside – Petitioner, a bank employee, was dismissed from service for alleged involvement in fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 55.20 lakhs – The disciplinary authority relied solely on a confessional statement made to the police and a prosecution witness referencing that confession – No independent evidence was produced in support of the charges – Held: Findings based solely on such statements do not meet the standard of “preponderance of probability” in departmental proceedings – The punishment order suffers from legal infirmity and was quashed – Petitioner entitled to continuity in service and 25% back wages – Respondents may initiate fresh proceedings or await the outcome of the pending criminal trial [Paras 1, 27-36].

Departmental Proceedings – Reliance on Confession to Police – Not Sufficient Without Independent Corroboration – Charges were proved solely on the basis of petitioner’s alleged confession during police investigation and the testimony of a witness affirming the same – Held: Confession before police, without independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis for departmental punishment – The proceedings were rendered unsustainable [Paras 27-34].

Natural Justice – Non-Consideration of Objections – Clause 12(c) of Settlement – Procedural Non-Compliance – Disciplinary authority failed to meaningfully consider objections filed by petitioner in response to the proposed punishment and failed to independently assess the evidence on record – Held: The earlier direction of the High Court requiring detailed consideration of objections and findings of the inquiry report was not complied with in spirit – Order suffers from procedural infirmity [Paras 19, 26-28].

Preponderance of Probability – No Supporting Evidence – Departmental Proceedings Must Be Based on Some Probative Material – Merely relying on statements recorded during criminal investigation does not fulfill even the civil standard of proof – Held: In absence of material evidence indicating petitioner’s involvement, charges could not be treated as proved – Findings of guilt not sustainable [Paras 29-31].

Proportionality of Punishment – Other Accused Given Minor or No Punishment – Disproportionate Action Against Petitioner – Other officials allegedly involved were either not punished or awarded minor penalties – Held: Imposition of harsh penalty of dismissal without cogent proof or uniformity in treatment is arbitrary and disproportionate – Violates principles of equality and fairness [Para 21].

Final Relief – Dismissal Set Aside – Partial Back Wages Granted – Petitioner to be Treated in Continuous Service – Held: Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders of dismissal and appellate rejection quashed – Petitioner entitled to continuity of service with 25% back wages – Respondents at liberty to proceed afresh or await criminal trial’s outcome [Paras 35-36].

Civil Law  – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Statutory Notices (s.80 CPC, s.280 ZP Act, s.180 MVP Act) – Plaint Rejected – Respondent filed suit on 30.07.2024 challenging eviction steps (order 01.03.2024; notice 15.07.2024) after issuing notice dated 24.07.2024 – Held: Pre-suit notice requirements under s.80 CPC (two months, waiver only per s.80(2)) and under s.280 ZP Act / s.180 MVP Act (three months; no waiver power) are mandatory – No pleadings of urgency/waiver; post facto waiver plea (Exh-48) inconsequential – Trial court erred in refusing O7 R11 – Order quashed; plaint rejected [Paras 2–6, 8–13, 14, 22].

Statutory Notice – Section 80 CPC vs. Section 280 ZP Act / Section 180 MVP Act – Waiver Distinction – Two-month notice under s.80 CPC is mandatory but may be waived only with leave u/s 80(2); by contrast, ZP Act/MVP Act notice periods have no waiver provision – Trial court lacked jurisdiction to dispense with those notices – Suit within nine days of notice is non-maintainable [Paras 9–13].

Pleadings & Timing – No Urgency/Dispensation Pleaded – Post-facto Application Ineffective – Plaint contained no averment of urgency or waiver; Exh-48 seeking s.80(2) leave filed months after O7 R11 rejection – cannot cure initial defect; moreover, waiver not possible for ZP Act/MVP Act notices [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court’s Error of Jurisdiction – Reversal – Trial court considered only s.80(2) CPC and ignored the mandatory, non-waivable notices under special statutes – Findings termed perverse; plaint liable to rejection [Paras 12–13, 22].

Precedents – Distinguished – Pioneer Builders (AIR 2007 SC 113) concerned s.80 CPC and post-leave decree; Sudhir Kumar Sharma (MANU/SC/0892/2013) inapplicable as s.80(2) plea was not pending here and special statute notices applied; other authorities on s.80 CPC alone (Ghulam Rasool; Chandrashekhar P. Rathi; Vasant Ambadas Pandit; K.K. Sharma) not helpful [Paras 15–21].

Decision – Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 01.10.2024 quashed – Plaint in RCS No.652/2024 rejected [Para 22].

Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment – Married Daughter – Dependency Requirement – Appeal Partly Allowed – Deceased Eastern Coalfields employee’s widow (aged above 45), married daughter, and son-in-law sought compassionate appointment under NCWA—Clause 9.3.3 (excluding married daughters) declared unconstitutional by Single Judge with prospective effect; claims rejected for lack of dependency proof—Division Bench held marital status irrelevant but dependency at time of death is condition precedent; married daughter and son-in-law produced no evidence of co-residence or financial reliance; findings of suppression of address documents stood unshaken—Rejection upheld—Widow entitled to monetary compensation under NCWA if applied within 30 days [Paras 13-17, 22, 25-27].

Interpretation of NCWA – Even after striking down Clause 9.3.3, remaining clauses 9.3.0, 9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.3.4, and 9.5.0 limit benefit to dependents—Dependency must be established by evidence; burden lies on claimant [Paras 15-17, 22].

Precedent Distinction – Sukumoni Hembram and Subhadra cases inapplicable where dependency not proved; those cases involved unmarried daughters admittedly dependent on deceased [Para 19].

Relief to Widow – As per NCWA, widow above 45 years entitled to monetary compensation, not appointment—Direction issued to grant compensation with arrears within 90 days upon application [Para 27].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed; rejection of claims of married daughter and son-in-law upheld; direction issued to release monetary compensation to widow on application; no costs [Paras 26-28].

Family Law - Child Visitation Rights – Welfare of Minor Paramount – Civil Revision Allowed – Petitioner/father’s plea for visitation to 10-year-old son was dismissed by Trial Court—During mediation, child initially distressed but later conversed with father for over 20 minutes on neutral topics—Mediator recommended supervised visitation to avoid distress—High Court held delay or pendency stage of divorce case irrelevant; love and bonding with both parents vital unless shown contrary to welfare—Order of dismissal set aside—Father permitted supervised visitation twice a month for three months under clinical psychologist’s supervision, with report to be submitted thereafter [Paras 12-22].

Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court reiterated that in custody/visitation matters there is no straitjacket formula; welfare of minor overrides disputes between parents—Child’s reactions, maturity, and circumstances to be assessed on case-specific basis [Paras 12-17].

Supervised Visitation – Detailed Directions – Visitation fixed on 2nd and 4th Sundays, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., at Phoenix Mall, Chennai, under supervision of Ms. Madhumitha, Clinical Psychologist—Father to pay ₹6,000 per visit towards supervision charges—Arrangement limited to three months, with liberty to seek further orders under Section 26 HMA post-divorce proceedings [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed; Trial Court order set aside; visitation rights granted on specified terms; divorce proceedings to be concluded within four months [Paras 21-24].