Bail – Cancellation – NDPS Act – Application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail – Bail granted by the Special Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura – Grounds for cancellation included discrepancies in GD entries and lack of reasonable grounds to believe accused’s non-guilt – Printing errors in GD entries noted but considered non-material – Section 37 of NDPS Act discussed, emphasizing that mere filing of charge-sheet is not sufficient ground for bail – Bail order set aside – Respondent directed to surrender [Paras 1-13].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail limitations – Requirement for Public Prosecutor to oppose bail and court to be satisfied of non-guilt and no likelihood of reoffending – Emphasized that bail under NDPS Act is an exception, not the rule – Court not to conclude guilt or innocence at bail stage but focus on reasonable grounds [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Application allowed – Bail order by Special Judge set aside – Respondent to surrender, failing which arrest to be ensured – Bail bond cancelled – Court mandates adherence to stringent criteria for bail under NDPS Act [Paras 11-13].

Environmental Law – Public Interest Litigation – Metro Rail Project – Petition filed by a citizen action group to halt the construction of a metro station near the Victoria Memorial and the Maidan area, citing environmental concerns – The petitioners contended the project would result in the uprooting of approximately 700 trees, with severe ecological impacts – The petitioners also requested a review of the project by independent experts and proposed alternate solutions [Paras 1-5].

Right to Information – Petitioners’ Inquiry – Petitioners filed multiple RTI applications seeking details of tree uprooting, transplantation spots, and permissions taken for the project – Alleged lack of response from Metro Rail – Petitioners argued that the term “transplant” was misleading and actual tree felling was likely to occur, contravening environmental regulations [Paras 2-4, 11].

Metro Rail’s Position – Opposition Filed – Metro Rail opposed the petition, arguing the petitioner had suppressed material facts and provided misleading information – Affirmed that construction had not begun and proper permissions were being sought – Stressed that the project was altered to minimize environmental impact, shifting from elevated to underground construction [Paras 6-12].

Judicial Precedents – Referenced Cases – The court referenced several cases emphasizing the need for balance between environmental protection and developmental needs – Referred to Supreme Court rulings on similar conflicts involving public infrastructure projects and environmental concerns [Paras 24-29].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Court found that requisite permissions for tree transplantation/felling had been obtained and the project complied with environmental regulations – Emphasized the importance of balancing public infrastructure needs with ecological preservation – Rejected petitioner’s plea to alter project alignment or method of construction [Paras 30-42].

Entertainment Duty – Definition and Scope – Petitioner organized APSARA award function, argued it did not fall under “entertainment” as per Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act – Court held the function included performances and thus fell within definition of “entertainment” [Paras 10-12].

Sponsorship as Payment for Admission – Reliance Communications sponsored the event, petitioner claimed it did not constitute “payment for admission” – Court held sponsorship amounted to payment for admission under Section 2(b)(viii), making duty applicable [Paras 15-16].

Legislative Intent – Definition of “Award Function” added in 2010 for concessional duty rate – Court concluded earlier functions also fell within “entertainment” definition, purpose of amendment was rate reduction not exclusion [Paras 12-14].

Penalty and Fine – Original and appellate orders imposing penalty lacked proper reference to specific statutory provisions – Court held imposition of penalty was unjustified and deleted it [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Entertainment duty upheld, penalty deleted – Impugned order modified accordingly [Paras 23-24].

Rejection of Plaint – Limitation and Court Fees – Appeal challenging rejection of plaint on the basis of being barred by limitation and inadequately stamped – Plaintiff executed sale deeds under misrepresentation – Claimed sale deeds intended as security for a loan, to be re-conveyed upon repayment – Defendant argued the suit barred by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, three-year period from sale execution – High Court emphasized meaningful reading of the plaint, found the limitation period began from alleged fraud discovery, not sale date – Undervaluation of relief addressed at trial, not ground for initial rejection [Paras 1-21].
Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Interpretation – Pleadings in plaint alone to determine cause of action and limitation – High Court stressed the necessity of examining whether facts in the plaint constitute cause of action – Observed that limitations and adequacy of court fees are mixed questions of fact and law, inappropriate for summary rejection at initial stage [Paras 12-20].
Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court set aside trial court’s order rejecting the plaint – Suit restored for trial on merits – Directed trial court to dispose of the suit without influence from prior observations – Emphasized that detailed scrutiny of pleadings should await trial, not preempted by procedural technicalities [Para 21].
 

Motor Accident Claims – Contributory Negligence – Compensation – The insurance company contested the award of compensation to the claimants on the grounds of contributory negligence by the driver of the deceased’s vehicle – The Court held that the insurance company failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of contributory negligence – Affirmed the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 74,94,600/- with interest at 6% per annum – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Contributory Negligence – Proof Requirements – The insurance company must provide direct or corroborative evidence to prove contributory negligence – Mere allegations or assumptions are insufficient – The evidence showed the truck was parked without any lights or indicators in violation of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, making it primarily responsible for the accident [Paras 18-24].

Negligence – Parking Regulations – Violation of Central Motor Vehicles Rules by the stationary truck was a significant factor – The truck was parked on the highway without the required parking lights or indicators, contributing to the accident – Compliance with parking regulations is critical for determining liability in road accidents [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award affirmed – Directed the disbursement of the deposited compensation to the claimants along with accrued interest – Payment of compensation subject to ascertainment of deficit court fee, if any [Paras 27-32].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellant convicted for the murder of his father and nephew and for destruction of evidence – Acquittal of co-accused (appellant’s mother) due to lack of evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence found unreliable – Trial Court’s judgment set aside due to lack of conclusive proof and inconsistencies in witness testimonies [Paras 1-15].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Witnesses PW1 (daughter of deceased and mother of another deceased) and PW2 (neighbor) – PW1 turned hostile, not supporting prosecution’s case – PW2’s testimony on motive found insufficient – Inconsistencies and delays in statements of key witnesses (PW8, PW9, PW10) undermined their reliability [Paras 8-10].

Motive – Insufficient Proof – Prosecution failed to establish motive convincingly – PW1’s hostility and PW2’s uncertain testimony did not support the alleged property dispute as motive – Document (Ex.P15) did not establish motive for murder [Paras 7-8].

Discovery of Evidence – Doubtful Credibility – Gunny bags containing deceased’s bodies allegedly discovered based on appellant’s confession – Inconsistencies in timing and involvement of police and witnesses (PW11, PW15, PW17, PW18) cast doubt on discovery’s credibility – No conclusive evidence that discovery was based on appellant’s information [Paras 11-12].

Defense of Alibi – Appellant’s Claim – Appellant and acquitted co-accused (A2) claimed to be in Thiruvannamalai at the time of the incident – Appellant’s claim not disproved by prosecution – DW1’s (A2’s) testimony supported appellant’s alibi, creating reasonable doubt [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.32 of 2017 dated 12.12.2019 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Ordered immediate release unless required in connection with any other case – Refund of fine amount, if paid – Bail bond discharged [Para 15].
 

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – Mens Rea – Petitioner’s reluctance to marry deceased after engagement and harsh communication leading to her suicide – Examination of mental process and direct acts of instigation or aid necessary for conviction under Section 306 IPC – Charge-sheet and statements lack sufficient evidence to establish essential ingredients of the offence – Cognizance quashed [Paras 1-17].

Mens Rea in Abetment of Suicide – Requirement of Direct or Active Act – No clear evidence of instigation or direct act by petitioner leading to deceased’s suicide – Psychological and societal pressures examined – Legal precedents applied emphasizing the necessity of clear mens rea and direct instigation for conviction under Section 306 IPC [Paras 10-14].

Evidence – Admissibility of Statements – Res Gestae – Immediate disclosure of facts by the victim before her death admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – However, discrepancies in statements and lack of precise conversation details between petitioner and deceased weaken the prosecution’s case [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order of Cognizance and Related Proceedings Quashed – Held – Lack of clear mens rea and direct act of instigation by petitioner – Emotional and psychological aspects considered but not sufficient for penal liability under Section 306 IPC – Petitioner’s reluctance to marry does not constitute criminal offence [Paras 15-17].
 

Property Law – Will Disputes – Appellant challenged the Lower Appellate Court's decision, which found Ex.X1 Will genuine and Ex.B1 Will suspicious – Lower Court’s appreciation of evidence upheld – Appellate Court's modification corrected to align with the terms of Ex.X1 Will – Second appeal dismissed and cross-objection partly allowed [Paras 1-32].

Genuineness of Wills – Evidence and Suspicion – Ex.X1 Will executed by the testator Mari Chettiar in favor of plaintiffs, Ex.B1 Will in favor of the first defendant – Trial Court’s erroneous preference for Ex.B1 corrected by Appellate Court – Ex.B1 found shrouded with suspicion due to lack of reference to earlier Will and non-registration [Paras 11-24].

Partition – Shares Allocation – Trial Court dismissed suit – Appellate Court partially allowed appeal but did not allocate shares per Ex.X1 Will – High Court rectified this, granting plaintiffs 1/6th share each and an additional 1/6th share to the second plaintiff from the testator's share [Para 31].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Cross Objection allowed to the extent of proper shares allocation as per Ex.X1 Will – No costs – CMP No. 13232 of 2021 closed [Para 32].
 

Property Law – Possession and Title – Plaintiffs sought direction for defendants to vacate and deliver possession of property and pay damages for illegal occupation – Defendants claimed property was ancestral and sale by predecessor was invalid – Court found sale deed executed by Mehanatha Mudaliar in 1995 valid and binding, plaintiffs perfected title – Defendants’ possession unlawful, suit decreed in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 18-27].

Ancestral Property – Validity of Settlement Deed – Defendants contended property was ancestral and settlement deed executed in 1953 was non-est – Court held settlement deed and subsequent sale deeds binding – Plaintiffs established title through sale deeds, revenue records, and statutory payments – Defendants failed to counterclaim or challenge settlement deed within limitation period [Paras 19-27].

Permanent Injunction – Alienation and Alteration – Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction to restrain defendants from alienating or altering property – Court granted injunction, holding plaintiffs’ title affirmed and they are entitled to recover possession and prevent unauthorized changes to property [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Suit decreed with costs – Defendants directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession within four weeks – Permanent injunctions granted as prayed.