Employees’ Compensation – Employer-Employee Relationship – Jurisdictional Fact – Insurer challenged award contending absence of employer-employee relationship – Commissioner relied on oral evidence of applicant, admission of employer in written statement and union identity card – No contra evidence adduced by opposite parties – Held, finding based on evidence on record and not perverse – Findings of fact under Section 30 cannot be interfered with unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Substantial question of law answered against insurer [Paras 9, 11].

Scope of Appeal – Section 30 of Employees’ Compensation Act – Interference with Findings of Fact – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence merely to substitute a different view – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse or without evidence – Rejection of insurer’s applications to summon documents not illegal – No jurisdictional error established [Paras 7, 9].

Compensation – Functional Disability – Permanent Total Disablement – Commissioner assessed 50% loss of earning capacity based on certificate issued by Medical College Doctor – Claimant contended that disablement rendered him incapable of performing work as lorry worker – Held, as per law laid down in Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 8 SCC 217, relevant consideration is functional disability and not mere physical disability – If injury incapacitates workman from performing work he was doing at time of accident, it may amount to permanent total disablement irrespective of percentage of physical disability [Paras 10, 11].

Medical Evidence – Need for Assessment by Medical Board – Disability certificate issued by single doctor – In interest of justice, claimant to be examined by competent Medical Board of Government Hospital – Commissioner directed to reassess functional disability and determine compensation afresh based on medical board report [Para 11].

Decision: M.F.A.(ECC) No.22 of 2024 dismissed – Finding regarding employer-employee relationship upheld – M.F.A.(ECC) No.80 of 2024 disposed of by remitting matter to Employees’ Compensation Commissioner for assessment of functional disability through competent Medical Board and fresh determination of compensation – Parties directed to appear before Commissioner – Records to be transmitted expeditiously.

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact – Fixed Deposits – Claim for maturity proceeds of deposits allegedly made in 1995–1996 in erstwhile Nedungadi Bank and Bank of Baroda – Banks contended that no such deposits were reflected in takeover records and accounts – Petitioners relied on original/photostat fixed deposit receipts retrieved from locker – Held, dispute requires adducing of evidence and detailed examination of records – Such issues cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Article 226 – Proper remedy is civil suit – Impugned judgment directing disbursement set aside [Paras 11, 12].

Bank Amalgamation – Liability of Transferee Bank – Punjab National Bank took over Nedungadi Bank in 2003 – Stand of Bank that alleged deposits, said to have matured in 1997, were not part of asset-liability schedule at time of takeover – Whether deposits existed and were carried forward is a matter requiring evidence – Cannot be conclusively determined in writ proceedings [Paras 2.1, 3.3, 12].

Delay and Limitation – Claim Raised After More Than Two Decades – Petitioners approached Banks in 2018–2019 for deposits allegedly matured in 1997 – Banks raised plea of delay and limitation – Learned Single Judge rejected plea considering retrieval of receipts from locker in 2018 – Division Bench held that limitation and related factual aspects are matters to be adjudicated by civil court – Petitioners contended applicability of Section 10 of Limitation Act on fiduciary relationship – No opinion expressed – Issue left open [Paras 13, 14].

Scope of Article 226 – Enforcement Not Establishment of Rights – Where foundational facts are seriously disputed and rival claims depend on documentary and oral evidence, writ court ought not to undertake fact-finding exercise – Reliance placed on settled principles that merits of rival claims to property and money are to be decided in properly constituted civil suit – Discretion under Article 226 not to be exercised in such circumstances [Para 11].

Interim Deposit and Withdrawal – Amount deposited by Bank pursuant to interim order and withdrawn by petitioners under protest – Held, such withdrawal subject to final decision of civil court – Rights of parties preserved [Paras 6, 7, 14].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Common judgment dated 20.12.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos.1304 of 2019 and 19940 of 2019 set aside – Parties relegated to competent Civil Court – Liberty granted to petitioners to institute suit within 15 days – Amount withdrawn pursuant to interim orders subject to outcome of civil proceedings.

Civil Law - Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Distinction from Sale with Condition to Repurchase – Interpretation of registered deed dated 24.09.1979 – Plaintiffs received Rs.13,000/- for household and agricultural expenses – Condition to reconvey property on repayment within 7 years – Restrictions imposed on enjoyment of property by defendant – Debtor–creditor relationship established – Held: Transaction constituted mortgage by conditional sale and not outright sale or independent agreement to repurchase [Paras 9-14, 16, 18].

Specific Relief – Decree for Reconveyance – Readiness and Willingness – Appellant contended that plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness for specific performance – Court held that once transaction is mortgage by conditional sale, right of redemption subsists – Plaintiffs were ready to repay mortgage amount within stipulated time – Decree for reconveyance and possession justified [Paras 4, 6.1, 14, 18].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings on nature of transaction based on interpretation of document and settled principles – Questions framed at admission held not to constitute substantial questions of law – Limited scope of interference reiterated – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-20].

Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule – Document to be read as a whole – Intention of parties to be gathered from terms of deed – Clear and unambiguous language to be given natural meaning – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents explaining distinction between mortgage by conditional sale and sale with option to repurchase [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court decreeing suit for redemption and directing reconveyance of property on deposit of Rs.14,610/- upheld – Interim relief vacated – Record and Proceedings directed to be sent back.

Rent Control – Bona Fide Requirement – Leave to Defend – Eviction petitions filed under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act seeking eviction of tenant from first and second floors on ground of paucity of residential accommodation – Tenant disputed landlords’ title relying upon unregistered GPA, Agreement to Sell and Will dated 03.07.1996 – Earlier orders dated 26.02.2019 rejected leave to defend holding landlords required only to show better title and not absolute ownership – Eviction allowed [Paras 1–4 ].

Review Jurisdiction – Section 25B(9) DRC Act – Scope akin to Order XLVII CPC – Review permissible only on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on face of record, or analogous sufficient reason – Reappreciation of same material or substitution of one possible view by another impermissible – Review cannot function as appeal in disguise – Principles from Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Yashwant Sinha v. CBI reiterated [Paras 16–17 ].

Reappreciation of Evidence in Review – Impermissible – Learned RC in review reconsidered same unregistered Agreement to Sell and held triable issue regarding landlord-tenant relationship – No new material produced and no patent error demonstrated in earlier orders – Held: Learned RC exceeded jurisdiction by virtually exercising appellate powers under guise of review [Paras 18–21 ].

Estoppel – Tenant Challenging Title – Tenant admitted induction as tenant in 1987 – Under Section 116 Evidence Act, tenant estopped from disputing landlord’s title during subsistence of tenancy – Landlord required to establish only better title, not absolute ownership – Reliance on Smt. Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha and Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi – Rent Controller erred in reopening settled issue of title in review [Paras 22–23 ].

Rent Jurisdiction Distinguished from Civil Title Adjudication – Rent Controller not to adjudicate absolute ownership disputes – Unregistered Agreement to Sell insufficient to defeat eviction petition in summary proceedings under Chapter III-A – Grant of leave to defend in review on speculative plea of implied surrender and ownership beyond scope of jurisdiction [Paras 19–20 ].

Revisional Interference – Though revisional powers are limited, High Court can interfere where order is contrary to settled principles of review and results in miscarriage of justice – Impugned review orders dated 20.09.2022 set aside – Earlier eviction orders restored [Paras 24–26 ].

Direction – Time to Vacate – Tenant directed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession within six months in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act [Para 27 ].

Decision: Revision petitions allowed – Impugned review orders set aside – Eviction orders dated 26.02.2019 restored – Six months’ time granted to tenant to vacate – Petitions disposed of [Paras 25–28 ].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Multiple Cheques – Single Complaint – Accused prosecuted for dishonour of four cheques issued towards repayment of common liability – Consolidated statutory notice issued under Section 138(b) – Contention that four distinct offences cannot be consolidated in one complaint – Held: Where cheques are issued as part of one series of acts forming same transaction, prosecution through single complaint is maintainable under Section 220 Cr.PC [Paras 8-10, 13-14].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 218 – Separate Charges – General Rule – For every distinct offence, separate charge and separate trial required – Exceptions carved out under Sections 219 and 220 Cr.PC – Section 219 permits joint trial of not more than three offences of same kind within 12 months – Present case involving four cheques not covered by Section 219 but governed by Section 220 [Paras 4-7, 12].

Section 220 Cr.PC – Same Transaction – Test – Offences may be tried together if arising from one series of acts so connected as to form same transaction – Proximity of time, unity of purpose, continuity of action and common design are relevant factors – Execution and issuance of four cheques towards discharge of single debt and failure to pay despite consolidated notice constitute same transaction [Paras 8-10].

Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat – Distinction – In Vani Agro, four separate complaints were filed and question concerned consolidation under Section 219 Cr.PC – Present case involves single complaint – Supreme Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act (2021) 16 SCC 116 clarified that Section 220 Cr.PC permits joint trial of several cheques forming part of same transaction – Reliance on Vani Agro misplaced [Paras 12-14].

Section 482 Cr.PC – Quashing – Petition challenging maintainability of complaint dismissed – No illegality in Magistrate’s finding that prosecution through single complaint is sustainable [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Criminal M.C. dismissed – Single complaint for dishonour of four cheques issued as part of same transaction held maintainable – Proceedings in S.T. No. 143/2019 to continue.

Civil Law - Partition – Claim as Coparcener – Proof of Paternity – Plaintiff claimed to be son of late Hanuma Reddy through alleged second wife – Defendants denied marriage and paternity – No pleading as to date, month and place of alleged second marriage – Mother (PW2) gave inconsistent version regarding year of marriage – No independent evidence of marriage or cohabitation produced – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proving valid marriage and paternity – Not entitled to share in suit properties [Paras 13-16, 22, 31-32].

Documentary Evidence – Voter List – Affidavits – SSC Certificate with Corrections – Evidentiary Value – Voter list held to be self-serving and only corroborative – Affidavits (Ex.A6, A7) found self-serving and not proved through attestors – SSC certificate (Ex.A9) contained material corrections in name, father’s name and date of birth without proper authentication – Birth letter (Ex.A10) not proved as public document under Section 76 Evidence Act – Held: Documents insufficient to establish paternity [Paras 16-21, 31].

Prior Partition – Admissions – Land Reforms Proceedings – Plaintiff admitted registered partition dated 19.02.1971 between deceased and defendants – In 1975 land reforms proceedings deceased declared he had only wife and two daughters and no son – Held: Strong circumstance against plaintiff’s claim of paternity [Paras 23-24, 31].

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Partition Suit – Plaintiff admitted alienations of suit properties under registered sale deeds (Ex.A11 to A15) prior to suit – Alienees not impleaded – No pleading regarding alienations – Held: Suit defective for non-joinder of necessary parties – Relief of partition cannot be granted in absence of alienees [Paras 26-28].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Delay of 21 Years – Appellant sought to produce Gazette, service register extracts, transfer certificate and duplicate SSC certificate at appellate stage – No satisfactory explanation for non-production during trial – Documents not essential for pronouncing judgment – Attempt to fill lacunae – Held: Conditions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC not satisfied – I.A.No.1 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 36-43].

DNA Test – Appellate Stage – Request after 21 Years – Plaintiff sought direction to respondents for DNA test to prove paternity – No foundational pleadings regarding marriage – Trial concluded long back – DNA test not to be ordered as matter of course – Relied on Goutam Kundu principles – Held: No strong prima facie case – Application belated and unwarranted – I.A.No.2 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 46-50].

Finality of Litigation – Clean Hands – Plaintiff suppressed material facts regarding alienations and possession of third parties – Held: Plaintiff approached Court without clean hands – Not entitled to equitable relief [Paras 26-27].

Decision: I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 dismissed – Appeal Suit No.4145 of 2003 dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 06.08.2003 in O.S.No.55 of 1996 confirmed – Each party to bear own costs – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Domestic Violence Act – Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Appellate Court directed return of application under Section 12 on ground of territorial jurisdiction – Held, though proceedings under Section 12 are predominantly civil in nature, High Court can invoke second limb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice – Order directing return of application is not interlocutory – Petition under Section 482 maintainable [Paras 19–25].

Interlocutory Order – Test – Order substantially affecting rights of parties and directing return of application cannot be termed interlocutory – Bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. not attracted – Reliance placed on Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 21–22].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 27 DV Act – Temporary Residence – Petition under DV Act maintainable where aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or where cause of action arises – “Temporary residence” means a dwelling place where aggrieved person takes shelter with intention to reside for time being and not a casual or fleeing visit merely to file case – Documents such as Aadhaar Card, residence certificate, leave and licence agreement and receipt of court notices at said address support claim of temporary residence – No material to show it was a mere fleeting address [Paras 27–30].

Cause of Action – Economic Abuse – Continuing Wrong – Allegation that husband neglected to maintain wife and child despite sufficient income amounts to “economic abuse” under Section 3 of DV Act – Economic abuse constitutes continuing cause of action – Continuity of shared household not sine qua non for claiming relief – Even if residence documents were subsequent, continuing economic deprivation within jurisdiction confers competence on court [Paras 31–36].

DV Act – Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – When two views possible, interpretation advancing object of protecting victim of domestic violence to be preferred – Hyper-technical approach to jurisdiction not warranted where prima facie materials show temporary residence and continuing domestic violence [Paras 10, 36].

Appellate Interference – Improper Reappreciation – Trial Magistrate had passed reasoned order upholding jurisdiction – Appellate Court substituted its view without cogent grounds – Findings held perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 11, 37].

Decision: CRR 3472 of 2022 allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2022 passed by Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2022 set aside – Order dated 14.07.2022 of learned 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in MISCN Case No.23 of 2020 affirmed – Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Succession – Removal of Executor – Section 301 – Fiduciary Duty – Persistent Non-Compliance – Applicant sought removal of Respondent (brother) as Executor for failure to administer estate despite probate granted in 2016 – Prior order dated 29/01/2025 had granted final opportunity with time-bound directions – Held: Continued non-compliance, vague explanations and failure to distribute estate within stipulated timelines constitute gross misconduct and breach of fiduciary obligations – Requirements of Section 301 satisfied – Executor removed and independent Administrator appointed [Paras 18-21, 24-25].

Executor – Duties and Obligations – Section 317 – Imposition of Extraneous Conditions – Respondent insisted on execution of Memorandum of Family Settlement and indemnity as pre-condition to distribution – Earlier order had categorically rejected such stand as being in teeth of statutory duties – Held: Once probate granted, Executor bound to administer estate strictly in accordance with Will – Cannot impose additional conditions not contemplated by Will – Such conduct amounts to obstruction of due administration [Paras 13(b), 18].

Administration of Estate – Delay of Nearly Decade – Failure to Furnish Proper Inventory and Accounts – Despite specific directions to distribute movables within two months and immovables within six months, Respondent failed to comply – Chart tendered during arguments contained unverified assertions not pleaded on oath nor supported by documentary evidence – Held: Casual and unsupported explanations demonstrate lackadaisical attitude and disregard of Court’s orders – Chart rightly disregarded [Paras 14-17].

Dividend and Shares – Transfer to IEPF – Non-Compliance with ECS Directions – Respondent contended that shares/dividends transferred to IEPF and companies refused transmission – Held: No documentary proof produced – No explanation of steps taken to recover shares or enforce rights – Bare assertions insufficient to justify delay – Demonstrates failure to exercise due diligence expected of Executor [Paras 13(c)-(e), 17].

Testamentary Jurisdiction – Discretion under Section 301 – Scope – Court empowered to suspend, remove or discharge Executor where continuance is detrimental to estate or prejudicial to beneficiaries – Beneficiary (widow) died awaiting legacy – Persistent delay frustrates testamentary intent – Held: Court cannot remain mute spectator to prolonged inaction – Removal warranted in interest of justice [Paras 20-24].

Precedents – Dr. Subhada Mithilesh v. Prabhakar Deolankar – Bagchi v. Hrishikesh Sanyal – Held: Executor not to be removed lightly – However, where clear material shows detriment to estate and frustration of Will, removal justified – On facts, precedents do not assist Respondent [Paras 22-23].

Relief – Appointment of Administrator – Respondent removed as Executor – Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale (Retd. Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court) appointed as Administrator – Directions issued for handover of records, filing of true inventory and accounts, and expeditious distribution within six months – Honorarium payable from estate – Stay refused [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Respondent removed as Executor under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Independent Administrator appointed – Directions issued for inventory, handover of records and time-bound distribution – No order as to costs – Request for stay rejected.

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Adultery, Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Allegation that wife developed illicit relationship and fled with alleged paramour – No specific pleading or cogent evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse – Witnesses gave generalized statements based on suspicion – No proof of continuous desertion for statutory period – Held: Findings of Family Court well-reasoned and not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-50, 63-67, 79-81, 82-85].

Adultery – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act – Though matrimonial proceedings governed by preponderance of probabilities, charge of adultery being grave requires high degree of probability – Bald and generalized allegations without specific instances or corroborative evidence insufficient – No proof of adulterous act or continuing adulterous relationship at time of petition – Allegations based on suspicion and surmises – Divorce rightly refused [Paras 35-42, 44-47].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegation that wife stopped physical relations and frequently left matrimonial home – No specific act of misconduct proved – Ordinary marital discord and quarrels do not amount to cruelty – No evidence that conduct was so grave and weighty as to render cohabitation unsafe or impossible – Finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 51-62, 64-67].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Petition filed within two months of alleged departure of wife – Statutory requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years immediately preceding presentation of petition not satisfied – Desertion ground not maintainable [Paras 68-76, 79-81].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 19, Family Courts Act – High Court can reappreciate evidence both on facts and law – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – No perversity found in appreciation of evidence by Family Court – Judgment affirmed [Paras 23-31, 49-50, 83-84].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2022 and 03.11.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.