Motor Vehicles Act – First Appeal under Section 173 – Limited Scope of Interference – Insurer confined challenge only to findings on negligence – No challenge to quantum of compensation – High Court reiterates that findings of fact recorded by Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence [Paras 8–9].

Negligence – Motor Accident – Alleged Contradictions in Testimony – Victim suffered 100% permanent disability – Minor inconsistency as to whether impact was from front or rear – Held: Such contradiction does not shake foundation of case – FIR, charge-sheet and police papers corroborated version of claimant – Tribunal rightly held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle [Paras 6, 9–10].

Motor Accident Claims – Nature of Proceedings – Summary in Character – Tribunal not bound by strict rules of pleadings or proof – Determination to be based on “just compensation” and preponderance of probability – Victims should not be denied compensation due to minor doubts or obscurities – Holistic approach of Tribunal approved [Para 9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Writ/Appeal Jurisdiction – Reliance on Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan – Error of fact, however grave, not a ground for interference – Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence cannot be re-examined in appellate jurisdiction – Findings based on evidence immune from challenge [Para 9].

Costs – Frivolous Appeal by Insurer – Appeal dismissed – Litigation cost of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed on insurer payable to victim in addition to decretal amount – Withdrawal of deposited amount permitted [Para 11].

Interim Applications – Stay – No substantial question of law involved – Prayer for stay declined – Interim Applications dismissed as infructuous [Paras 12–13].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and award dated 04.03.2025 upheld – Costs imposed on Insurance Company – Interim Applications disposed of.

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Pre-2015 Claims – Petitioner sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds in 2013, 14 years before superannuation, and applied for compassionate appointment of his physically disabled son – Claim rejected in 2017 on grounds that 2015 scheme was inapplicable to cases before 05.08.2014 and that no medical incapacitation certificate was submitted – Held: Petitioner’s application dated 09.04.2014 fell within Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme and had to be considered under Circulars of 2005 and 2007 – Circular dated 24.09.2007 provided for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment for employees retiring before age 55 due to incapacitation – Bank erred in insisting on certification by medical board where scheme did not so require [Paras 4, 24–34, 36–37]

Ex Gratia Compensation – Eligibility under 2007 Circular – Employee voluntarily retired before 55 due to incapacitation and made timely application – Circular B(iii) of 24.09.2007 provides entitlement to ex gratia payment without need for medical board certification – Bank’s denial based on technicalities rejected – Petitioner's medical retirement accepted without objections, indicating implied recognition of incapacitation – Rejection of benefit arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 25–33]

Policy Interpretation – Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme – Applications pending as on 04.08.2014 or made before that date must be dealt with under earlier circulars – Bank’s failure to apply Clause 24 and denial of relief under 2007 Circular was unjustified – Bank directed to process ex gratia compensation within 12 weeks [Paras 26, 36–38]

Compassionate Appointment – Financial Hardship – Bank’s argument that petitioner was receiving pension and retiral benefits not relevant – Held: Financial need not sole determinant – Purpose of compassionate appointment includes broader social obligation – Case law in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar and Malaya Nanda Sethy applied [Paras 12–13, 35]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned communication dated 16.01.2017 set aside – Respondent Bank directed to consider petitioner’s application for appointment of son on compassionate grounds and grant ex gratia compensation under Clause B(iii) of Circular dated 24.09.2007 – Payment to be processed within 12 weeks [Para 38]

Banking Law – Interest Equalisation Scheme – Scope and Applicability – Plaintiff, an MSME manufacturer-exporter, was granted 5% interest subvention in September 2021 under the IE Scheme valid at the time – Defendant Bank unilaterally debited Rs. 3.45 crores from plaintiff’s account in June 2022 relying on RBI Circular of 8 March 2022 reducing subvention to 3% – Held: Clause 2(e) of the IE Scheme mandated full and upfront passing of subvention benefit based on date of disbursement – Subsequent circulars could not be applied retrospectively – Bank’s recovery illegal [Paras 1, 7-10, 28, 35, 39, 46, 59-61]

Administrative Law – Interpretation of Circulars – RBI and DGFT Clarifications – DGFT clarification dated 8 July 2022 stating benefit of 5% could only be passed on up to 30 September 2021 was inconsistent with the language of IE Scheme – Held: Plaintiff’s entitlement crystallised on date of disbursement – Later clarifications and circulars could not override vested rights [Paras 36-46, 58-59]

Banking Practice – Reimbursement Claim Negligence – Defendant Bank failed to timely and fully claim reimbursement of 5% subvention from RBI – No evidence that RBI rejected any claim – Held: Plaintiff cannot be penalised for bank’s omission – Recovery from plaintiff unsustainable [Paras 20, 51-56]

Contract Law – Exporter Undertakings – Plaintiff had agreed to refund interest equalisation benefit in case of rejection of claim by RBI – Held: Since no such rejection occurred, clause could not be invoked – Defendant’s reliance on undertaking misplaced [Paras 55-56]

Decision: Suit decreed – Defendant directed to refund Rs. 3,45,37,097/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from 22 June 2022 till actual realisation – Plaintiff also awarded costs [Paras 60-61]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a housing redevelopment project – Petitioners, allegedly acting in concert, misrepresented ownership and control over two flats and induced complainant to invest Rs.1.91 crores – Despite MoUs and arbitral proceedings, FIR disclosed cognizable offences – Custodial interrogation held necessary in light of allegations of forged representations and financial misappropriation – Bail applications dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 7, 20-24]

Cheating – Misrepresentation of Ownership – Petitioners claimed to represent 11 flats before Arbitrator, though they owned only 9 – Two flats allegedly belonged to complainant, who was not party to arbitral proceedings – Petitioners knew complainant paid Rs.1.91 crores, but falsely recorded Rs. 40 lakhs – Allegations of deliberate misrepresentation found plausible at this stage [Paras 6, 15, 21]

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Economic Offences – Supreme Court rulings relied upon to highlight seriousness of economic offences – Held: Custodial interrogation of petitioners necessary to trace money trail and examine alleged conspiracy – Protection under anticipatory bail would obstruct further investigation [Paras 22-23]

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Petitioners argued dispute was civil and settlements were executed – Court held such documents do not negate FIR allegations at this stage – Matter involves serious allegations of inducement, fraud, and misuse of investor funds – Civil proceedings do not preclude parallel criminal liability [Paras 10-11, 21]

Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Custodial interrogation held necessary in view of serious economic offences and prima facie material suggesting conspiracy, misrepresentation, and financial misappropriation – Observations in judgment confined to bail issue only [Paras 24-26]

Criminal Law – Murder and Theft – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence – No eyewitnesses to the occurrence – “Last seen” theory not proved as material witnesses (P.Ws.6 to 16) turned hostile – Held: In absence of complete chain of circumstances, conviction under Sections 302 and 379 IPC unsustainable [Paras 16, 18, 20].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Stolen Property – Sole Incriminating Circumstance – Recovery of 20 goats from house of A2 nearly three months after incident – No other corroborative evidence connecting accused with murder – Held: Conviction for murder and theft cannot be based solely on recovery effected after considerable delay [Paras 10-12, 18-20].

Evidence – Presumption from Recovery – Limits – Reliance on recovery of movable property – Goats allegedly retained for three months without disposal – Conduct found unnatural and improbable – Distinguished Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. where recovery of jewellery was involved – Held: Presumption insufficient to establish guilt for offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Majority of prosecution witnesses examined to prove circumstantial links turned hostile – Prosecution failed to establish motive, last seen theory or nexus between accused and crime – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 11, 16, 20].

Offence under Section 411 IPC – Receiving Stolen Property – Partial Conviction Sustained – Recovery of stolen goats from possession of A2 proved through evidence of P.Ws.20 and 24 – Test Identification Parade of goats conducted and not challenged in cross-examination – Held: Conviction of A2 under Section 411 IPC justified and confirmed [Paras 17, 21].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal Nos.1807, 1953 and 2683 of 2018 allowed – Convictions and sentences of Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 under Sections 302 and 379 read with 34 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2021 partly allowed – Convictions of Accused No.2 under Sections 302 and 379 read with 34 IPC set aside – Acquittal recorded for those offences – Conviction and sentence under Section 411 IPC confirmed – Accused No.2 directed to be released, having already undergone sentence.

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act – Rebuttal by Accused – Standard of Proof – Accused admitted signature on cheque but set up defence that cheque was part of multiple cheques issued for chit transaction to a third party – Defence supported by reply notices and contemporaneous documents – Held: Accused need only raise a probable defence and not prove it beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption successfully rebutted on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 12, 15–19].

Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Onus on Complainant – Complainant claimed cash loan of ₹5,00,000/- without documentary proof – Failure to disclose source of funds in statutory notice – Contradictory deposition regarding who sought the loan – Held: Once financial capacity is disputed, burden shifts back to complainant – Failure to prove capacity weakens prosecution case [Paras 7, 12, 19].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Transaction allegedly routed through intermediary (R. Venkateshappa) – Complainant admitted no difficulty in examining said person – Same counsel represented complainant and intermediary in connected proceedings – Held: Non-examination of crucial intermediary, despite defence specifically alleging misuse of cheque, is a material omission attracting adverse inference and probabilising defence [Paras 18–19].

Appreciation of Evidence – Perverse Findings – Courts below proceeded solely on admission of signature on cheque – Ignored contradictions in complainant’s testimony, reply notices and defence evidence – Held: Failure to consider entire material on record renders findings perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2016 and 17.04.2021 set aside – Petitioner/accused acquitted of offence under Section 138 NI Act – Bail and surety bonds discharged.

Civil Law  – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Bar of Suit by Special Statute – Land acquired under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Notification under Section 10 issued prior to institution of suit – Land vested absolutely in Central Government – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 26 – Trial Court erred in refusing to reject plaint – Held: Suit patently barred by law and plaint liable to be rejected [Paras 11–19].

Limitation – Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act – Challenge to sale deed – Pleading of date of knowledge instead of date of execution – Plaintiff pleaded knowledge of sale deed on 27.02.2022 – Issue of limitation becomes mixed question of law and fact – Trial Court justified in not rejecting plaint on limitation alone [Paras 9–10].

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Effect of acquisition and vesting – After issuance of notification under Section 10, title vests in Central Government free from encumbrances – Civil dispute regarding title becomes irrelevant except for determination of entitlement to compensation – Only surviving right is claim to compensation [Paras 13–15].

Jurisdiction – Tribunal under Sections 14 and 17 of Act of 1957 – Tribunal empowered to decide disputes relating to compensation and entitlement thereto – Tribunal headed by a person who is or has been qualified to be a Judge of a High Court – Tribunal competent to decide incidental questions of title to determine entitlement to compensation – Civil Court jurisdiction excluded under Section 26 [Paras 14–18].

Precedents – Divergent views – Bombay High Court view in Sandeep v. Suchita not accepted – Views of Patna High Court and Jharkhand High Court preferred – Held: Once acquisition is complete, civil suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs is not maintainable [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint rejected as barred by Section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Parties to bear own costs.

Foreigners Law – Expulsion vs. Deportation – Right to Challenge – Petitioner’s wife declared foreigner by Foreigners Tribunal in 2017 – Failed to avail opportunity granted by High Court in 2021 to appear and contest – Tribunal’s ex parte opinion revived – Court held that declared foreign nationals have no right to reside in India – Expulsion upheld [Paras 3–4, 34–36]

Constitutional Rights – Applicability to Foreigners – Article 21 – Petitioner contended wife’s fundamental rights violated by alleged illegal pushback – Court held: Only right to life and liberty under Article 21 applies to foreigners, and expulsion does not amount to arrest – No violation of Article 22 or CrPC provisions [Paras 15, 22, 30, 33]

Procedural Safeguards – Failure to Avail Opportunity – Petitioner’s wife failed to appear before Tribunal despite extension granted by High Court – Verified copy of order was ready on 29.09.2021 – No explanation given – Presumption under Section 119(g) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam applied against her [Para 34]

National Security – Influx from Bangladesh – Court referred to Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India to emphasize ongoing external aggression due to illegal migration – Held: State has absolute authority to expel declared foreigners, including by direct return to Bangladesh, irrespective of diplomatic acceptance [Paras 12–14, 18, 20, 26]

Jurisdiction – Foreigners Tribunals – Declaration has civil consequences – No need to produce declared foreigner before magistrate as per CrPC – No violation of due process found – Tribunal procedures held distinct and valid under Foreigners Act [Paras 32–33]

Relief Sought – Rejected – Petitioner sought production of nationality verification and handover documents – Court held such evidence not required to justify lawful expulsion – No cause for initiating inquiry against officials found [Paras 9, 35–36]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No costs – Registry to place order in W.P.(C) No. 3170/2025 for record.

Rent Law – SCC Eviction Decree – Ex-Parte Proceeding – Substitution of Legal Representatives – No Fresh Summons Required – Under Order XXII Rule 4(4) CPC, where a suit is already proceeding ex-parte against the original defendant and the defendant dies, the court is not obliged to substitute the legal representatives and the decree may be passed against the original defendant notwithstanding death – In the present case, the original tenant Ram Bharose Verma did not appear despite service of summons and the suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 10.12.2012 – He died on 27.01.2013 – Notices on the substitution application were served by refusal and heirs were substituted – Held: Since the suit was already proceeding ex-parte, there was no necessity of issuing fresh summons to the substituted heirs after substitution – Ex-parte judgment and decree dated 16.09.2013 is not a nullity for non-issuance of fresh summons to substituted heirs [Paras 15–17].

Executing Court – Cannot Go Behind the Decree – Section 47 CPC – Objections Regarding Validity of Summons and Power of Attorney – Held: The executing court cannot go behind the decree and examine facts recorded or satisfaction recorded by the trial court in the ex-parte judgment or in orders passed during the suit – Whether summons were properly served on the original defendant was recorded in the order dated 10.12.2012 and the same was not challenged by way of revision – The plea regarding suit being filed through power of attorney holder and notice being given by the landlord personally are matters which go behind the decree and cannot be examined under Section 47 CPC [Paras 9, 25].

Tenancy – Death of Original Tenant – Heirs as Joint Tenants – Decree Binding on All – Section 3(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 – Upon death of tenant in respect of a residential building, only such heirs as normally resided with him at the time of death succeed as tenants – Held: There was no averment in the petition that petitioner No. 2 was normally residing with the deceased original tenant Ram Bharose Verma at the time of his death and, therefore, it is not made out that she became a tenant entitled to be separately substituted – Further, the heirs of a deceased tenant inherit as joint tenants and not as tenants-in-common and notice to one is sufficient notice to all – Any defect in service of notice on one of the joint tenants would not make a decree passed against all joint tenants a nullity when notices were served on the other joint tenants [Paras 19–24].

Typographical Error in Name – Section 152 CPC – Decree Not Rendered Nullity – The name of petitioner No. 2 was mentioned as "Heena Verma" in the substitution application whereas her name is "Hema Verma" – The trial court held this to be a typographical error and corrected the same under Section 152 CPC – Held: A mere error in spelling of the name does not affect the validity of the decree when notices were duly served on the heirs of the deceased tenant and they had full knowledge of the proceedings [Paras 18, 12].

Impleadment of Courts as Opposite Parties – Deprecated Practice – The petitioners had impleaded the Additional District Judge-XII and the Judge Small Causes Court as opposite parties – Held: The practice of impleading courts as opposite parties has been deprecated by the Supreme Court – Courts neither defend their orders before superior courts nor do they contest proceedings – Records can be called for without impleading the court or presiding officer as a party [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Petition dismissed at admission stage.