Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Maintainability of Claim – Income Limit under Second Schedule – Tribunal dismissed claim holding annual income of deceased exceeded ₹40,000/- by including daily fooding allowance – High Court held that allowance paid exclusively for personal benefit of employee cannot be treated as contribution to family – Fooding allowance of ₹150 per day excluded from income computation – Annual income restricted to ₹39,600/- – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable [Paras 11, 15–17].

Compensation – Meaning of Income – Allowances – Distinction between Personal Benefit and Family Contribution – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava – Only those components of remuneration which would have formed part of family contribution can be included – Allowances meant exclusively for individual use cannot be added – Tribunal’s contrary view set aside [Paras 14–17].

Precedent – Deepal Girishbhai Soni – Applicability Explained – Earlier judgments relied upon by Tribunal distinguishable on facts – Issue of exclusion of allowances not examined in those cases – Income computation requires nuanced analysis based on nature of allowance [Paras 11, 16].

Insurance Policy – Employee Coverage – Comprehensive Package Policy – Policy produced before High Court showed coverage of employees of owner up to specified number – Deceased was helper of insured vehicle – Insurer liable to indemnify owner and pay compensation – Tribunal’s finding to contrary rejected [Paras 20–21].

Beneficial Legislation – Appellate Court Powers – Tribunal did not adjudicate other issues after rejecting claim on maintainability – High Court proceeded to determine liability and quantum to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Motor Vehicles Act being beneficial legislation, prolonged litigation avoided [Para 19].

Quantum of Compensation – Assessment by High Court – Monthly income assessed at ₹3,300/- – Annual income ₹39,600/- – One-third deducted towards personal expenses – Compensation computed at ₹4,75,200/- plus general damages of ₹9,500/- – Total compensation ₹4,84,700/- with 6% interest from date of application [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Award of Tribunal set aside – Claim under Section 163A held maintainable – Compensation of ₹4,84,700/- with interest awarded – Insurance Company directed to pay amount within three months – Tribunal to apportion compensation among claimants – No costs [Paras 22–23].

Family Law - Custody and Visitation – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of Child – Visitation rights of father modified by Family Court reducing frequency of physical meetings and introducing regulated video calls – Held: In matters of custody and visitation, welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration overriding rights and convenience of parents – Courts must ensure physical safety, emotional well-being and psychological stability of the child [Paras 11, 15–18].

Interim Visitation – Power to Modify – Change in Circumstances – Family Court modified earlier consensual interim visitation arrangement dated 14.11.2024 based on subsequent incidents including alleged altercations, registration of FIR and complaints under PWDV Act – Held: Interim visitation arrangements are always subject to modification if subsequent events demonstrate potential impact on child’s welfare – No vested right accrues to either parent [Paras 14–16].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Limited Appellate Interference – Family Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction after considering relevant material – Appellate court cannot substitute its own view unless order is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to welfare of child – Mere reduction in visitation frequency does not amount to denial of parental contact [Paras 20–21].

Balancing Parental Contact with Child’s Safety and Stability – Modified arrangement permitted physical meetings twice a month at neutral public place and video calls twice a month – Held: Arrangement strikes balance between father’s right to meaningful contact and need to protect child from instability arising from inter se parental disputes – Modification protective rather than punitive [Paras 17–18].

Ongoing Parental Conflict – Impact on Child – Record reflected multiple litigations and acrimonious disputes between parties – Courts duty-bound to insulate child from parental conflict as far as possible – Stability, routine and academic needs of school-going child must be prioritised over frequent short-duration meetings [Paras 19–20].

Allegations Pending Investigation – No Final Adjudication Required at Interim Stage – While allegations against father disputed, Family Court not required to conclusively determine truth at interim stage – Existence of surrounding circumstances sufficient to warrant cautious approach in regulating visitation [Paras 16–18].

Visitation Rights – Not Absolute – Subject to Regulation – Right of a parent to visitation is not absolute and can be reasonably regulated in interest of child’s welfare – Interim arrangements remain open to future modification upon demonstrable change in circumstances [Paras 20–23].

Counselling and Mediation – Observations – Court emphasised shared parental responsibility to foster healthy environment for child – Family Court may explore counselling or mediation to evolve harmonious co-parenting framework [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 15.12.2025 upheld – Modified interim visitation arrangement to continue until further orders – Observations confined to interim visitation and not to affect merits of pending proceedings [Paras 21–25].

Registration Act – Section 22-A – Government Land – Mandatory Refusal of Registration – Deed of Transfer executed pursuant to BIFR scheme sought to be registered after payment of stamp duty – Registering Authority refused registration holding that instrument involved transfer of more than 1700 acres of Government leased land without sanction – Held: Section 22-A casts a mandatory duty on Registering Officer to refuse registration of instruments relating to transfer of immovable property belonging to State Government unless prior sanction of competent authority is produced – Provision has overriding effect and is attracted irrespective of parties executing the instrument [Paras 7–7.2].

Scope of Enquiry by Registering Authority – K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar Distinguished – Reliance placed on K. Gopi to contend that Registrar cannot enquire into title – Held: K. Gopi dealt with private sale transactions and validity of Rule 55-A, not with Section 22-A or Government land – Registrar is not adjudicating title but discharging statutory obligation to verify compliance with Section 22-A – Incidental power to call for documents upheld [Paras 7.3–7.3.2].

Lease vs. Assignment of Leasehold Rights – Mining Lease – Contention that Section 22-A applies only to lease and not assignment of leasehold rights rejected – Held: Lease is the instrument; leasehold rights are the interest conveyed – Assignment of leasehold rights is in substance transfer of lease – Expression “by way of” in Section 22-A is illustrative, not exhaustive – Assignment of mining lease over Government land squarely attracts Section 22-A [Paras 8–8.8].

Mining Law – Prior Consent of State Government – Mandatory Requirement – Assignment of mining lease without previous consent in writing of State Government prohibited under Section 12-A MMDR Act, Rule 37 of 1960 Rules and lease deed conditions – Such transfer is void and unenforceable – Requirement of prior consent cannot be cured by subsequent ratification [Paras 9–10].

Section 22-B Registration Act – Transactions Prohibited by Law – Assignment of mining lease in contravention of MMDR Act and Rules amounts to transaction prohibited by law – Registering Authority bound to refuse registration under Section 22-B as well [Paras 11–11.1].

Public Trust Doctrine – Minerals as National Assets – State holds minerals as trustee for present and future generations – Strict compliance with statutory regime governing mining essential – Assignment of mining rights must conform to MMDR Act to subserve public interest and intergenerational equity [Paras 11.2–11.4].

BIFR Scheme – No Immunity from Statutory Mandates – Transfer under BIFR sanctioned scheme does not override MMDR Act or requirement of prior State consent – Courts cannot interpret schemes or judicial orders as permitting acts contrary to statute – No exemption expressly granted under the scheme [Paras 12–12.4].

Acceptance of Royalty/Dead Rent – No Deemed Consent – Acceptance of dead rent or royalty by State does not amount to consent for renewal or assignment of mining lease – Mere payment and acceptance of rent insufficient to infer assent [Paras 13–13.1].

Judicial Review – Remand for Fresh Consideration – Impugned refusal order set aside for failure to conduct proper enquiry on requirement of prior State consent and applicability of Sections 22-A and 22-B – Matter remanded to Registering Authority to pass fresh order after detailed enquiry – Court acting as sentinel on the qui vive to protect public resources [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Impugned refusal order dated 21.04.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to respondent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law – Writ Petition disposed of – No costs.

Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Conviction – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 451 IPC – Victim aged about 9 years at time of incident – Victim categorically stated in cross-examination that appellant made full penetration – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – No rule of law requiring corroboration in every case [Paras 3.1–3.4, 4.2].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Doctor found no recent clinical signs of sexual intercourse and no injuries on victim – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit reliable ocular testimony of victim – Medical evidence is corroborative and not substantive – Where testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy, conviction can be based thereon [Paras 2.5–2.7, 4.2].

Child Witness – Credibility – Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC consistent with FIR and deposition before Court – Victim stood firm during cross-examination – No material contradictions or infirmities found – Evidence inspires confidence [Paras 3, 4.2].

Rape Jurisprudence – Corroboration – Rule of Prudence Not of Law – Reiterated that corroboration of prosecutrix’s testimony is not a sine qua non – Minor discrepancies or absence of physical injuries do not negate prosecution case – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court decisions affirming settled principles [Paras 3.2–3.3, 4.2].

Defence Plea – Prior Enmity – Not Substantiated – Suggestion of prior quarrel between families insufficient to discard victim’s evidence – No evidence of false implication established – Mere existence of past dispute does not demolish prosecution case [Paras 2.4, 4.2].

POCSO Act – Strict Liability – Protection of Child Victims – Victim being a minor, statutory presumption operates in favour of prosecution – Sexual assault on child proved beyond reasonable doubt through victim’s testimony – Conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act justified [Paras 3.4, 4.2].

Sentence – No Interference – Sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under IPC and POCSO Act directed to run concurrently – Trial court judgment found to be legal and proper – No ground made out for appellate interference [Paras 1, 4.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by Special Judge, Nuapada affirmed – Appellant to undergo sentence as awarded – No interference warranted [Para 4.3].

Pre-emption – Co-sharer’s Right – Superior Right – Plaintiff proved to be co-sharer at time of sale and institution of suit – Suit land forming part of joint holding and not partitioned – Held: Co-sharer in unpartitioned land has superior right of pre-emption over vendee [Paras 5–7, 15–16].

Pre-emption – Gair Mumkin Bara – Section 5(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act – Exclusion of reclaimed waste land – Mere entry of land as Gair Mumkin Bara does not automatically attract bar under Section 5(b) – No evidence that land was reclaimed waste land by vendee – Held: Suit land remains pre-emptable [Paras 14–15].

Partition – Effect on Right of Pre-emption – Private partition mutation relied upon by vendee – Mutation related only to agricultural land – No proof of partition of Bara portion – Bara continued to remain joint – Held: Plaintiff continued as co-sharer retaining right of pre-emption [Paras 15–16].

Improvements – Claim by Vendee – Expenditure on improvements – Plea of spending ₹4,500/- on raising boundary walls – No cogent evidence produced – Self-serving plea rejected by courts below – Findings affirmed [Paras 5–7].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Regular Second Appeal – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held plaintiff entitled to decree of pre-emption – Findings based on proper appreciation of evidence – No substantial question of law arising – Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees dated 22.07.1992 and 27.07.1993 passed by the Courts below upheld – Concurrent findings affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 17–18].

Civil Law – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 CPC – Refusal to Appoint Commissioner – Revisability – Petition filed under Article 227 challenging order of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner – Held: Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of parties and therefore is not revisable – Appointment of Local Commissioner is purely discretionary and no vested right accrues to any party [Paras 1–3].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Limited Scope – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to circumvent settled law on maintainability of revisions – Reliance placed on binding Division Bench judgment holding such orders as non-revisable – No illegality or perversity found in impugned order [Paras 2–3].

Withdrawal of Revision Petition – Liberty to Lead Evidence – Petitioner sought permission to withdraw revision in view of settled legal position and availability of opportunity to lead evidence at appropriate stage – Revision dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to adduce relevant evidence during trial [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed as withdrawn – Liberty granted to petitioner to lead relevant evidence before Trial Court.

Criminal Law - Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Not Negotiable Endorsement – Applicability – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act on ground that cheque bore "Not Negotiable" marking – Held: Endorsement “Not Negotiable” merely restricts transferee from acquiring better title under Section 130 NI Act – It does not nullify drawer’s liability or exclude application of Section 138 – Drawer remains liable if cheque issued in discharge of debt and dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complaint maintainable – No ground to quash proceedings at preliminary stage [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of trial and revisional court rejecting application to drop proceedings under NI Act – Held: Courts below rightly held that legality of cheque and existence of enforceable debt are triable issues requiring evidence – No jurisdictional error or abuse of process shown – Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Paras 6–7]

Interpretation of NI Act – “Not Negotiable” Endorsement – Legal Effect – Cited case Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1952 All 590 explained – Endorsement does not destroy negotiability or legality of cheque – Trial to proceed to determine liability [Para 6]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly held that issue of whether cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and applicability of Section 138 are matters of trial – “Not Negotiable” endorsement does not render Section 138 inapplicable – No interference warranted under Section 482 CrPC.

Civil Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application seeking rejection of plaint on ground that suit for administration of estate is barred in law as plaintiff had propounded a Will and probate proceedings were pending – Held: Plaint cannot be rejected where it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law – Order VII Rule 11 invoked erroneously [Paras 57–58, 70–71, 76].

Administration of Estate – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Distinction from Probate Proceedings – Plaintiff propounded Will of 1994 and filed probate petition as executor – Defendant contended civil court lacked jurisdiction till probate decided – Held: Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction only to decide genuineness and execution of Will – Administration of estate and protective reliefs fall within civil court’s jurisdiction – Remedies are distinct and can proceed concurrently [Paras 59–62, 73, 77].

Pending Probate – Maintainability of Administration Suit – Mere pendency of testamentary proceedings does not bar institution or continuation of suit for administration of estate – Grant of probate may follow suit but must precede final decree – Section 213 of Succession Act not a bar to institution of civil action [Paras 63–64].

Executor – Section 211 Succession Act – Legal Representative – Executor becomes legal representative of deceased upon death – Vesting of estate enables prosecution of civil proceedings without waiting for probate – Rights subject to outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 63, 45].

Two Competing Wills – Civil Court’s Limited Role – Plaintiff acknowledged later Will of 2012 propounded by defendant – Held: Civil court need not and cannot decide which Will is genuine – Testamentary court alone to adjudicate validity – Civil court confined to administration and protection of estate [Paras 62, 73–74].

Alternative Pleas – Will and Intestacy – Permissibility – Plaintiff sought administration as per Will and alternatively on intestacy – Objection that pleas were mutually destructive rejected – Held: Alternative pleas permissible where factual foundation not inconsistent – Alternate relief would arise only if both Wills held invalid [Paras 65–67].

Contradictory vs Alternative Pleas – Test Applied – Pleas not self-destructive as they operate on different eventualities – Reliance on Praful Manohar Rele and Sarva Shramik Sangh affirmed – No bar to claiming alternate reliefs on same factual matrix [Paras 65–67].

Rejection of Plaint in Parts – Impermissible – Defendant sought rejection of prayers (a) to (c) alone – Held: Plaint must be read as whole – Partial rejection not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 70].

Concurrent Proceedings – Civil and Testamentary Courts – Suit for administration and probate proceedings may proceed simultaneously – Final decree in administration suit to await outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 77].

Decision – Notice of Motion seeking rejection of plaint dismissed – Suit held maintainable – Four weeks’ stay granted on operation of order [Paras 78–80].

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against Child – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Victim – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted for wrongful restraint, outraging modesty and rape of a minor girl – Victim gave a clear, cogent and consistent account of sexual assault involving digital penetration and sexual acts – Cross-examination failed to discredit her testimony – Held: Conviction can be safely based on sole testimony of prosecutrix when it inspires confidence [Paras 14–17, 22].

Evidence – Minor Contradictions and Omissions – Effect – Defence highlighted omissions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and discrepancies regarding disclosure of incident – Held: Minor omissions which do not affect the core of prosecution case are inconsequential and do not undermine credibility of victim’s testimony [Paras 16, 23–24].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Medical examination conducted after lapse of time showed no genital injuries – Doctor opined that injuries could heal within 7–10 days – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony of victim – Medical evidence not sine qua non for conviction in sexual offence cases [Paras 20–22].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Sexual Offences – Explained – FIR lodged after victim disclosed incident to friend and family – Delay satisfactorily explained due to fear, trauma and social stigma – Held: Delay in sexual offence cases cannot be equated with other crimes and does not vitiate prosecution case [Paras 22].

Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses – Adverse Inference – When Not Warranted – Defence argued non-examination of daughter of appellant and other relatives – Held: When evidence on record is overwhelming and unimpeachable, non-examination of some witnesses is not fatal and does not warrant adverse inference [Paras 36].

Rape – Section 375(b) IPC – Digital Penetration – Act of inserting finger into private part of minor squarely falls within Section 375(b) IPC – Consent irrelevant as victim was a minor – Offence of rape clearly made out [Paras 41–42].

Goa Children’s Act – Grave Sexual Assault – Acts proved constituted “grave sexual assault” under Sections 2(y)(i) & (ii) punishable under Section 8(2) – Conviction under special statute justified [Paras 43–44].

Sentence – Age of Accused – No Mitigation in Child Sexual Offence – Appellant aged above 80 years sought leniency – Held: Advanced age of accused not a mitigating factor in offences involving sexual assault on a child – Protection of child and societal conscience paramount [Paras 50–52].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Children’s Court affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender forthwith – Prayer for stay rejected.