Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appellant sought divorce alleging respondent’s disinterest in marriage, extra-marital relationship, and repeated desertion – Family Court dismissed petition citing lack of specific evidence and hearsay nature of allegations – Appellant’s claims of respondent’s cruelty and desertion found unsubstantiated – Appeal dismissed, upholding Family Court’s decision [Paras 1-32].

Specific Allegations and Evidence – Requirement of Specific Evidence – Appellant’s allegations of cruelty included respondent’s statements about disinterest in marriage, maintaining a relationship with another person, and threats of suicide – Claims based on hearsay, with no direct witness testimony or corroborative evidence – Appellant failed to produce crucial witnesses, including parents and panchayat members [Paras 4-15, 19-20].

Previous Petition – Res Judicata – Bar on Fresh Petition – Previous divorce petition filed by appellant dismissed for non-prosecution – Instant petition for same relief on same grounds deemed barred by law – Legal principle of res judicata applicable [Para 24].

Respondent’s Willingness to Reconcile – Evidence – Testimonies indicated respondent’s willingness to continue marital relationship – Appellant’s witnesses corroborated respondent’s willingness and appellant’s refusal to reconcile – Compromise agreement (Ext. R-1) signed by appellant admitted wrongful doubts about respondent’s character [Paras 18, 23, 28-29].

Compromise Agreement and Judicial Findings – Compromise agreement evidenced appellant’s apology and undertaking not to ill-treat respondent – Family Court noted appellant’s failure to prove allegations of cruelty and desertion – Findings from complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act and maintenance awarded to respondent also considered [Paras 21-23, 30].

Judgment of Family Court – Affirmation – Family Court’s findings regarding lack of specific allegations and hearsay evidence upheld – No direct or circumstantial evidence of alleged extra-marital relationship – Previous judicial findings and compromise agreement noted – Appeal found to lack merit and dismissed [Paras 13-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No costs – Pending applications also disposed of.

Superannuation Pension – Effective Date of Pension – Retired employees of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank challenged the date from which they were granted superannuation pension – Petitioners argued for pension commencement from the next day of their retirement, citing anomalies in the pension regulations and Supreme Court rulings – Court found regulations binding, noted petitioners had agreed to terms by opting into the pension scheme – Writ petition dismissed without costs [Paras 1-39].

Regulations – Pension Regulations Formation – Petitioners claimed anomalies in the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018 – Court held regulations were properly formed in consultation with stakeholders and approved by NABARD and the Central Government – Emphasized petitioners’ acceptance of the terms by refunding corpus to the Pension Fund [Paras 6-37].

Legal Precedents – Parity with Sponsor Banks – Court referenced various rulings on pension parity between Regional Rural Banks and Nationalized Commercial Banks – Affirmed the regulatory process and compliance with Supreme Court directives on pension parity – Regulations found consistent with legal standards [Paras 33-37].

Constitutional Challenge – Articles 14, 21, 300A – Petitioners claimed regulations violated their rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution – Court found no merit in claims, stating regulations were uniformly applied and petitioners were not deprived of due process or property without law [Paras 9-28, 36].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Court upheld the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018 – No order as to costs – Connected applications disposed of [Para 39].

Food Adulteration – Conviction and Sentence – Petitioner, an employee of M/s M.K. Oil & Flour Mill, convicted for selling adulterated mustard oil – Case initiated after mustard oil sample collected by A.C.M.O.H. found adulterated with rice bran oil by Public Analyst – Trial Court sentenced petitioner to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000 fine, in default further 6 months rigorous imprisonment – Appellate Court upheld conviction – High Court revises conviction, highlighting inconsistencies in testing reports and procedural lapses [Paras 1-16].

Conflicting Laboratory Reports – Discrepancies between Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory Reports – Initial Public Analyst Report found rice bran oil in mustard oil – Central Food Laboratory Report found no rice bran oil but indicated different Bellier Test Temperature – High Court observes significant contradictions creating doubt on prosecution’s case – Central Food Laboratory’s findings preferred as per statutory mandate under Section 13(3) of PFA Act [Paras 2-10, 12-13].

Procedural Compliance – Section 13 of PFA Act – Prosecution’s procedural lapses in sample collection and testing – Lack of public witnesses during sample collection – Violation of mandatory provisions of Section 10(9) of PFA Act – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – High Court emphasizes need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in food adulteration cases [Paras 5-13].

Application of Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance – High Court notes failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. during trial – Affected fairness of trial – Importance of giving accused opportunity to explain incriminating evidence highlighted [Para 3b, 13].

Evidence Discrepancies – Reports’ Contradictions – Public Analyst Report indicated presence of rice bran oil and normal Bellier Test Temperature (25.5°C) – Central Food Laboratory Report showed absence of rice bran oil and higher Bellier Test Temperature (28.3°C) – High Court finds reports’ discrepancies critical in casting doubt on reliability of prosecution’s evidence [Paras 2-13].

Lack of Mens Rea – Petitioner as Employee – Petitioner neither manufacturer nor owner of oil mill – Lacked mens rea for adulteration – High Court notes petitioner acted under direction of employer – Benefit of doubt extended to petitioner as discrepancies in evidence and procedural lapses significant [Paras 3, 13].

Decision – Revisional Application Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner acquitted of charges under Section 16(1)(A) read with Section 7(1) of PFA Act – Petitioner discharged from bail bonds forthwith – High Court mandates proper adherence to procedural safeguards in food adulteration cases [Paras 17-22].

Income Tax – Reassessment Notice – Legality of Sanction: Petitioner challenged the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. Contention was based on improper sanction obtained under Section 151(i) instead of 151(ii) for proceedings beyond three years from the relevant assessment year – Court held that the sanction was not obtained as per the statutory requirement under Section 151(ii) – Impugned notice and order quashed [Paras 1-9].

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act – Requirement of Sanction: Emphasis on statutory compliance under Section 151 – Court observed that for actions initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, sanction must be obtained from the Chief Commissioner or Director General as per Section 151(ii) – Approval in the present case was improperly granted under Section 151(i) [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 29 August 2022 under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 quashed – Other issues kept open – Rule made absolute with no costs [Para 9].

Income Tax – Assessment Order – Writ Petition challenging assessment order issued without proper notice to petitioner – Address discrepancy noted; notices returned undelivered – Petitioner claimed lack of opportunity to contest assessment due to incorrect address – Court found fault with petitioner for not updating address with Income Tax Department but recognized the necessity for petitioner to be heard – Assessment order set aside subject to payment of costs and re-assessment directed [Paras 1-6].

Procedure for Assessment – Importance of Proper Notice – Emphasized that taxpayers must update current addresses with tax authorities – Highlighted procedural lapse in serving notices and conducting assessments without taxpayer’s knowledge – Court mandated reasonable opportunity and personal hearing for petitioner during re-assessment [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed with Costs – Assessment order dated 10.01.2024 set aside on condition of petitioner paying Rs.15,000 as costs to Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai – Respondent directed to provide portal access for petitioner to submit reply and conduct reassessment with opportunity for personal hearing via video conference within four months [Para 6-7].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles and Application – The prosecution must establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the five golden principles set out in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 for cases based on circumstantial evidence. The absence of direct evidence necessitated reliance on these principles to conclude guilt [Paras 5-8].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem report and expert testimony established the cause of death as manual strangulation, ante mortem, and homicidal in nature. The court found the evidence consistent with strangulation rather than accidental drowning, refuting the defense’s claim of atypical drowning [Paras 20-24, 32-33].

Section 106, Indian Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – The appellant’s failure to explain the circumstances of his wife’s death within the privacy of their home significantly contributed to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The court applied Section 106, emphasizing the necessity for the accused to offer a plausible explanation for facts peculiarly within his knowledge [Paras 37-47].

Conflicting Testimonies – The defense’s reliance on expert testimony to suggest accidental drowning was outweighed by consistent and credible prosecution evidence, including the post-mortem findings and witness statements. The inquest and post-mortem reports corroborated the prosecution’s case of homicidal strangulation [Paras 12-16, 29-31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed. The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a coherent and comprehensive chain of circumstantial evidence. The appellant’s explanations were deemed insufficient and inconsistent with the established facts [Paras 48-51].

Land Acquisition – Unauthorized Use of Land – Compensation – Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession, permanent, and mandatory injunction after their land was utilized for road construction without their consent or due process – Trial court directed the State to acquire the land following legal procedures and disburse the assessed compensation to the landowners – High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, reinforcing the obligation for due process in land acquisition and fair compensation [Paras 1-14].

Legal Obligation for Compensation – The State constructed the Auhar-Kohina road using plaintiffs’ land without written consent or formal acquisition – Notification for acquisition issued but not completed – High Court emphasized that utilizing private property for public projects requires legal acquisition and fair compensation, rejecting the argument of oral consent and public interest overriding the requirement of lawful process [Paras 2-4].

Judicial Findings – Concurrent Judgments – Lower courts found the State’s actions unlawful due to lack of written consent and incomplete acquisition process – The State’s appeal was dismissed for lack of a substantial question of law – High Court reiterated the principle that the State cannot utilize private land without adhering to legal procedures and ensuring compensation [Paras 4-5].

Statutory Compliance – Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act – The issuance of notification under Section 4 is a necessary preliminary step in the land acquisition process – Failure to proceed with subsequent steps led to the lapsing of the notification – The State’s failure to comply with statutory requirements invalidated its claim of lawful use of the land [Paras 2-4].

Compensation for Public Use – High Court held that public use of private land without compensation is impermissible – The construction of public infrastructure does not exempt the State from following due legal processes and ensuring landowner rights – Compensation is mandatory unless the landowner voluntarily transfers land in a legally recognized manner [Paras 4-5].

Decision:
Appeal dismissed – Judgments of the lower courts upheld – State directed to initiate proper land acquisition procedures and compensate landowners as per legal requirements.
 

Arbitration Clause Interpretation – Scope and Ambit – Arbitration clause in the agreement, covering disputes “arising out of or in relation to the agreement”, was not restricted solely to the validity of the agreement – Court emphasized the need for purposive interpretation to give effect to all expressions in the clause and avoid redundancy – Forum selection clause read in conjunction with the arbitration clause, indicating all disputes related to the agreement, including validity, were referable to arbitration [Paras 22-28].

Issue of Limitation – Force Majeure Clause Consideration – Petitioners contended that mining operations were halted due to government restrictions, invoking the force majeure clause in the agreement – The court held that the issue of limitation was arguable and required evidence, thus should be decided on merits by the arbitrator [Paras 43-49].

Cause of Action for Arbitration – Court found the cause of action arose from the respondent’s failure to place purchase orders and provide post-dated cheques as per the agreement – The agreement was based on a previous debt and the dispute was not “dead wood” – Arbitration clause intended to cover such disputes [Paras 50-60].

Decision: Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allowed – Sole arbitrator appointed to resolve the disputes – All issues left open for consideration by the arbitrator [Paras 61-63].
 

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction and Sentencing – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC for causing a fatal accident while driving a tanker in a rash and negligent manner. Trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines. Conviction and sentence upheld by appellate court, leading to the filing of the present revision petition​​.

Evidence – Witness Identification and Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Absence of TIP does not invalidate witness identification during trial. Multiple witnesses, including the Matador driver, identified the petitioner. Evidence found reliable and trustworthy despite minor inconsistencies​​.

Defective Investigation – Impact on Conviction – Defective investigation does not automatically entitle the accused to acquittal. Independent scrutiny of evidence determines reliability. Non-examination of certain witnesses like the mechanic considered a procedural lapse that did not materially affect the prosecution's case​​.

Sentencing – Consideration of Age and Probation – Court refused to modify sentence or grant probation based on petitioner's age, emphasizing strict punishment for motor vehicle accidents causing death. Petitioner had only served 29 days of sentence, considered too lenient for the offense committed​​.

Decision: Revision petition dismissed, conviction and sentence upheld. Compliance and information dissemination directed to concerned trial court and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal​​.