Land Laws – Partition of Joint Holding – Ex Parte Proceedings – Allegation of Wrong Address – Petitioner challenged partition order dated 30.08.2018 and appellate order dated 09.08.2024 on ground that respondent No.3 mentioned wrong address to prevent his participation – Held: Petitioner failed to produce any material, including jamabandi or revenue record, to prove that respondent No.3 knew his correct address or intentionally misrepresented it – Mere allegation without supporting document insufficient to vitiate partition proceedings [Paras 4–5].

Participation in Proceedings – Estoppel – Record showed petitioner’s counsel had appeared before Assistant Collector, gave no objection to Naksha Bey, and submitted reply on 28.08.2018 – Finding of Financial Commissioner that petitioner participated in proceedings remained uncontroverted – Having participated and failed to object to Naksha Alif, mode of partition, Naksha Bey, or Naksha Zeem, petitioner estopped from challenging partition after conclusion of proceedings [Paras 6–7].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court under Articles 226/227 will not re-appreciate findings of fact or reopen concluded partition proceedings absent jurisdictional error, fraud, or procedural illegality – No such infirmity found – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of Assistant Collector (30.08.2018) and Financial Commissioner (09.08.2024) upheld – All pending applications closed [Paras 8–9].

Administrative Law – Writ of Mandamus – Police Interference in Business Activity – Licensing of Chemicals – Petitioner engaged in purchase and sale of certain chemicals for which no explosives licence was required as confirmed by Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives (letter dated 15.02.2023) – Police allegedly visiting petitioner’s shop and obstructing business – State contended that shop situated in a narrow area posed safety risks and that petitioner was shown as accused in Crime No. 235/2021 under Sections 304-II, 286, 336, 338 IPC & Section 9(B) Explosives Act – Petitioner refuted criminal involvement, asserting non-mention in FIR – Held: As the chemicals traded did not require an explosives licence, police directed not to interfere with petitioner’s business operations – However, police not precluded from following due process of law to ensure public safety – Writ Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 3–7].

Decision: Police directed not to interfere with petitioner’s business activities; liberty reserved to act in accordance with law to ensure public safety – Writ Petition disposed of – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – PC Act Ss. 13(1)(c), 13(2) – IPC Ss. 409, 468, 471 – Allegation that petitioner misused official position as Secretary, TN Legislative Assembly, and claimed travel allowance for private visit – Petitioner obtained Speaker’s permission and undertook travel; no records of meeting with Secretary General, Lok Sabha – Held: Whether trip was private or official is factual issue – Since act reasonably connected with official duty, sanction under Section 197 CrPC mandatory – Cognizance without sanction improper – Prosecution directed to seek sanction by 31.12.2025, failing which petitioner entitled to discharge [Paras 16-21].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Requirement of Sanction – Section 19(1), PC Act – Petitioner had retired in 2011; amendment requiring sanction for former public servants came only in 2018 – Hence, no sanction needed under PC Act – However, CrPC S.197 sanction still required as alleged act connected with official duty [Paras 12-14, 20].

Scope of Discharge – Prima Facie Case – Trial Court dismissed discharge petition without considering sanction issue – High Court held that sanction requirement goes to root of jurisdiction – Without sanction, proceedings cannot continue – Discharge postponed until sanction issue resolved [Paras 10-13, 20-21].

Decision – Criminal Revision partly allowed – Respondent directed to seek sanction by 31.12.2025 – If sanction not obtained, petitioner entitled to discharge – Till then, trial Court not to frame charges [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Appeal Against Acquittal – Respondent accused of driving a tanker rashly and hitting a cyclist who died on the spot – Eyewitness accounts (PW5 and PW6) found inconsistent, contradictory, and uncorroborated by physical evidence – No mechanical inspection of the cycle conducted – Tanker inspection showed no fresh damage – No photographs or reliable scene reconstruction adduced – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified [Paras 2–6, 13–15, 20–21].

Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictions – PW6 claimed to witness the accident from both inside and outside a bus – PW5 admitted he did not see the driver – Statements made under Section 161 CrPC by PW6 contradicted his court deposition – No proof of witness presence at scene through memos or photographs – Held: Testimonies unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5, 13–14].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal by Trial Court reinforces presumption of innocence – Appellate court must be cautious in overturning acquittals unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable or perverse – Held: Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on evidence – No grounds for interference [Paras 17–19].

IPC Section 304A – Requirement of Proof – Essential ingredients include rash or negligent act directly causing death – High speed alone not sufficient to infer rashness – Mere occurrence of accident not proof of negligence – Held: In absence of evidence on speed, traffic conditions, or manner of driving, conviction under Section 304A cannot be sustained [Paras 10–12, 16].

Presumption of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Inapplicability – Held: Principle applies only when circumstances unmistakably point to negligence – Not attracted merely because an accident occurred – Criminal negligence must be established through specific evidence, not inference [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279 and 304A IPC upheld – Court finds prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment found reasonable, based on lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution case – Double presumption of innocence reinforced [Paras 20–21].

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum Awarded in Excess of Claim – Just Compensation – Tribunal awarded ₹1.3 Crores against claimed ₹82 Lakhs – Insurance Company objected to grant of compensation beyond claim – Held: Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, courts and tribunals are empowered to grant “just compensation” irrespective of claimed amount – Social welfare legislation permits award above claimed figure to meet ends of justice – No legal embargo on granting compensation more than what is claimed [Paras 42-52] –

Assessment of Income – Guesswork in Absence of Documentary Proof – Permissible – Claimant’s income assessed as ₹20,000/month though no tax returns or formal proof was filed – Tribunal relied on lease agreements, oral testimony, and surrounding circumstances – Held: In motor accident cases, adjudication of income can involve reasonable estimation or guesswork where evidence is credible – Income determined by tribunal based on broad-based judicial approach found justified [Paras 53-61] –

Permanent Disability – Evidence – Medical and Lay Witnesses – Compensation for Future Care – Claimant rendered 100% disabled due to spinal cord injury (C5-C6) – Evidence from 20 witnesses including treating doctors, physiotherapists, hospital administrators, and attendants established permanent incapacitation – Costs of long-term physiotherapy, personal assistants, and medical expenses proved – Tribunal’s award supported by extensive documentary and oral evidence [Paras 17-41] –

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court's Deference to Tribunal’s Factual Findings – Insurance Company challenged only two components: compensation exceeding claim and lack of income proof – Tribunal’s findings on all other heads of compensation remained unchallenged – Held: Where tribunal takes a possible view based on evidence, appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported by record [Paras 62-63] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award of ₹1.3 Crores upheld – Insurance Company and other respondents directed to deposit awarded amount within 2 months – Claimant permitted to withdraw full compensation without security – No costs [Paras 63-64].

Application for regular bail in a case involving grievous assaults stemming from prior enmity and extortion demands – alleged repeated attacks on complainant and his nephew, including within hospital premises – petitioner identified as principal assailant with multiple past criminal involvements.

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Written Statement – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Replication – Scope and Pleadings – Petitioners sought amendment of written statement to rebut new facts introduced in replication filed by plaintiffs – Trial court dismissed the application holding replication not part of pleadings – Held: Replication, when permitted by court, forms part of pleadings; defendants have right to counter new averments – Amendment necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and enable full adjudication [Paras 6–12].

Replication – Legal Status – Order VIII Rule 9 CPC – Supreme Court Clarification – Following K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini (2009 (1) RAJ 78) and Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajjit Singh (2024 INSC 391) – Replication permissible with leave of court and may be treated as part of pleadings if allowed – Pleas introduced therein must be specifically controverted, failing which deemed admitted [Paras 8–11].

Amendment at Initial Stage – No Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit still at preliminary stage and issues not framed – Amendment neither alters nature of defence nor prejudices plaintiffs – Liberal approach warranted to ensure complete justice [Paras 9, 12].

Precedents – Reliance – Salig Ram v. Shiv Shankar, 1971 AIR P&H 437 – Replication forms part of pleadings; uncontroverted averments deemed admitted – Hakam Singh v. Jagir Singh, 1991 (2) RRR 170 – Amendment permissible to clarify existing stand without changing nature of defence [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Civil Revision Allowed – Impugned order dated 24.03.2025 set aside – Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement allowed – Trial Court directed to accept amended written statement and proceed with trial [Paras 13–14].

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum – Concealment of Income – Revision Dismissed – Revisionist-husband, a company director, challenged Family Court order directing payment of ₹20,000/- p.m. each to wife and daughter – He alleged that maintenance was excessive considering his income of ₹2.4 lakh p.a. – Wife alleged concealment of true income and production of manipulated ITRs – Documentary evidence showed deposits exceeding ₹67 lakh in company accounts and assets worth over ₹1 crore – Court found deliberate suppression of income – Held: Revisionist had sufficient means and moral/legal duty to maintain wife and daughter [Paras 15–27].

Wife Living Separately – Justifiable Cause – Evidence showed wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment – Husband failed to cross-examine her on key allegations – Trial court rightly held that she was living separately for sufficient reasons [Paras 10–11].

Wife’s Qualification – Capability to Earn – Effect – Wife, though qualified (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma), left employment at husband’s insistence – Presently unemployed and caring for minor child – Mere capability to work not ground to deny maintenance [Paras 12–14].

Standard of Living – Principle of Parity – Wife entitled to live in similar standard as husband – Husband’s attempt to evade liability by showing reduced income rejected – Maintenance to ensure dignity and prevent destitution – Court reiterated that sustenance implies living consistent with family status [Paras 18–22].

Determination of Quantum – Guiding Principles – Reaffirmed Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor meagre – Financial capacity, lifestyle, inflation, and dependent obligations to be considered [Para 23].

Presumption – Able-Bodied Husband – Following Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Del 174) – Able-bodied man presumed capable of earning sufficient to maintain wife and child; concealment of income invites adverse inference [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court order upheld – ₹20,000/- per month each to wife and minor daughter affirmed – No interference warranted [Para 30].

Customs Law – Import Clearance – Out of Charge – DRI Officer’s Post-Clearance Action – Petitioner’s goods (dry dates) cleared under Section 47 of Customs Act after full verification by Customs, FSSAI, and Ministry of Agriculture – Despite clearance and gate pass, goods forcibly brought back to CFS by DRI Officer based on unverified intelligence alleging Pakistani origin – Held: Action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) in securing return of cleared goods was arbitrary, not supported by law or legal procedure – No lawful revocation or show cause notice preceded such retrieval – Violation of natural justice and rule of law [Paras 1–7, 12–23, 33–34, 45, 54].

Customs Act – Section 47 – Legal Finality of Clearance Order – Goods once cleared for home consumption upon satisfaction by proper officer cannot be interfered with without following due process – No proceedings under Section 124 initiated – Held: Sixth Respondent’s telephonic “requests” to reverse clearance orders circumvented legal remedies available under Customs Act – Clearance once made under Section 47 cannot be undone without lawful proceedings [Paras 4, 19–23, 30–32, 37, 54].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice and Rule of Law – Highhanded action by government officer divesting goods already cleared without issuing notice or recording reasons – Held: Any civil consequence must be preceded by due process – Mere reliance on intelligence not enough – Absence of any file notings, written orders, or ‘reason to believe’ vitiates the action – Colour of office cannot replace colour of law [Paras 17, 23, 26–29, 31–33, 39, 54].

Powers of DRI – Section 106 Customs Act – Improper Invocation – DRI Officer relied on Section 106 to justify stopping and retrieval of goods – Held: Section 106 applies to smuggling suspicion before clearance – Goods in question already cleared after 6 days of examination – No lawful authority shown for recalling cleared goods post Out of Charge – Section 106 not attracted [Paras 24–26, 28, 32].

Disputed Origin – Pakistani Origin Allegation – Dry dates alleged to have originated in Karachi and routed through UAE – Clearance granted after specific examination instructions on Pakistani origin – Court refuses to adjudicate origin dispute under Article 226 – Directs Customs to issue show cause and follow due process [Paras 10–11, 38–42, 44–45, 54].

Remedy – Equitable Relief – Court refuses to order immediate release but imposes time-bound direction for issuance and adjudication of show cause notice – If not done, directs release of goods upon redemption fine/bank guarantee – Balances petitioner’s commercial interests with revenue’s concerns [Paras 47–50, 55].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Court holds action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of natural justice – However, in the interest of balancing equities, permits Customs Authorities to issue show cause notice within 4 weeks and dispose of it within 6 weeks of reply – If not complied, goods to be released upon furnishing bank guarantee for redemption fine – Rule made partly absolute – No costs [Paras 54–56].