Award of Compensation – The trial court computed the amount of compensation based on the minimum wage rate due to lack of sufficient evidence for the claimed monthly income of the deceased – Amount awarded without interest, contrary to Section 4A of the Employee’s Compensation Act. [Para 4]

Appeal for Interest – The appellant appealed solely for the non-award of interest at 12% per annum, citing a violation of the mandatory provision of Section 4(A) of the Employee’s Compensation Act. [Para 6]

Liability of Insurance Company – The respondent No.2-Insurance Company contested that it was only liable to cover the principal award amount, not the interest or penalty due to the insured’s fault. [Para 7]

Statutory Mandate – The High Court concluded that the lack of interest in the original award was contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 4A(3)(a) and thus suffers from perversity. [Para 12]

Modification of Order – The appeal was allowed, and the High Court ordered that simple interest at 12% per annum should be added to the original award amount from the date of the accident. [Para 13]

Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Court's Responsibility - The executing court's duty to enforce the court's verdict as per the decree is established, and the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. In case of ambiguity in the description of the property in the appellate decree, the court is directed to consider the original trial court decree for clarity. [Para 18-20]

Precedents and Interpretation - Reiteration of well-established legal principles that executing court cannot go beyond the decree and must enforce the judgment in its face value. However, in case of ambiguity, it becomes the bounden duty of the Court to interpret the decree while giving true effect to it. [Para 16, 17]

Decree Specificity - Importance of a clearly articulated decree that leaves no room for ambiguity in order to facilitate smooth execution. Citing Rule 106 of Civil Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which underlines the necessity for a decree to be drawn up in a manner that does not require reference to any other document for its understanding and execution. [Para 7, 11-13]

Appeal and Amendment - The scope for amending decrees and judgments is confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes as per Section 152 of the CPC. If a substantial mistake exists, the remedy lies in a review of the judgment. [Para 10, 14]

Relief Granted - The impugned order of the executing court set aside. The court directed to proceed with the execution of the decree in accordance with the law, taking into consideration the original trial court decree for a clear description of the property. [Para 20]

Family Law – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Appeal filed by appellant-wife against decree of divorce granted in favor of respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) – Appellant alleges dowry harassment and cruelty by respondent and his family – Respondent alleges mental cruelty by appellant. [Para 1, 17-18]

Settlement Deed – Agreement between parties to live separately and not to make dowry demands – Appellant alleges non-compliance and continued harassment by respondent – Court finds contradictions in appellant’s statements and lack of evidence to substantiate her claims. [Para 25-26, 43-44]

Dowry Harassment – Insufficient Evidence – Mere filing of FIR not sufficient to prove allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment without being substantiated by cogent evidence. [Para 11-12]

Counter-Blast – False Complaints – Court observes that complaints against respondent and his family appear to be a counter-blast to the divorce petition. [Para 14]

Mental Cruelty – Definition and legal precedents – Court examines conduct of both parties throughout marriage – Finds appellant’s allegations of dowry harassment, molestation, and attempted murder unsubstantiated – Considers respondent’s allegations of mental cruelty by appellant. [Para 21-23, 27-29, 33-34]

Evidence and Credibility – Court notes contradictions in appellant’s statements and lack of evidence to support her allegations – Gives weight to respondent’s consistent narrative and circumstances leading to their living separately. [Para 24, 26, 28-29, 45-46]

Desertion – Appellant claims respondent deserted her, making him ineligible for divorce – Court finds respondent’s act justified due to appellant’s mental cruelty, negating claim of desertion. [Para 47]

Decision – Court concurs with Principal Judge, Family Court – Dismisses appeal and upholds divorce decree granted in favor of respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [Para 48-49]

Statutory Framework – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act - accused being charged under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The legislation requires a minimum sentence of 7 years for offenses under Section 4 and 10 years under Section 6. [Para 1, 7, 8]

Facts – Attempt to Commit Penetrative Sexual Assault - prosecution charged the accused based on the evidence presented, which primarily consisted of the victim's and her mother's testimony and a medical report. The court assessed whether the accused committed penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault. [Para 2-5]

Evidence and Inference – Lack of Penetrative Assault - Special Judge found that there was insufficient evidence to prove penetrative sexual assault but concluded that there was an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault based on the victim's and medical testimony. [Para 4-5]

Sentencing – Inconsistency with Statutory Mandate - Special Judge sentenced the accused to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment, which is below the minimum sentencing guidelines under the POCSO Act for the attempted offenses. [Para 6]

Judicial Discretion – Limitations and Requirements - the court has limited discretion in sentencing and cannot impose a sentence lesser than the statutory minimum, specifically referring to the provisions under the POCSO Act. [Para 9]

Oversight – Role of Special Public Prosecutor and State - Neither the Special Public Prosecutor nor the State took steps to address the inconsistency in the sentencing, highlighting a critical oversight in the case. [Para 10-11]

Decision: The judgment points out a glaring error in the sentencing, which is inconsistent with the POCSO Act's minimum sentencing guidelines. The Court stresses the importance of following statutory requirements and criticizes the oversight of the Special Public Prosecutor and the State in not addressing the error. [Para 10-11]

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Challenge against the impugned order by Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para 2-3]

Legal Remedies and Jurisdiction – The Court establishes that arbitration is not an efficacious remedy for the restoration of a terminated dealership. The writ petition is deemed the appropriate legal forum for the petitioners, especially when the relief sought involves the restoration of the dealership. [Para 23-25, 21]

Termination of Dealership and Procedural History – The petitioners faced multiple rounds of litigation, including arbitration and writ petitions, against the Corporation's termination orders. The Court ultimately quashes the termination orders, citing a lack of substantive reasoning and due process in the Corporation's actions. [Para 22, 26-29, 34-39, 53]

Evidence and Fact-Finding in Tampering Allegations – The Corporation's allegations of tampering with dispensing units are found to be unsubstantiated. The Court notes that no concrete evidence of tampering, such as extra wires or attachments, was presented. The mere presence of marks on the motherboard was deemed insufficient for termination. [Para 34-36, 44-50]

Contractual Obligations and Dealership Agreement – The Court scrutinizes the relevant clauses (16, 44, 58(m)) in the dealership agreement and finds that the petitioners did not violate any of these clauses. The Court also notes that the Corporation did not provide a fitness certificate for the reinstalled dispensing unit, weakening its case against the petitioners. [Para 40-43, 45-47]

Reference to Judicial Precedents – The Court cites a similar case, M/s Modern Service Station Vs. IOC & Others, to bolster its decision in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the need for substantive reasoning in termination orders. [Para 51]

Detailed Procedural History and Multiple Appeals – The petitioners navigated through arbitration, multiple writ petitions, and appeals. The Court provides a detailed account of this legal journey, leading to the final decision that quashes the Corporation's termination orders. [Para 30-33, 37-39]

Final Decision and Directions – The Court quashes the impugned termination orders dated 03.05.2023 and directs the Corporation to resume the supply to the petitioners' retail outlet within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. [Para 53-55]

Criminal Procedure – Transfer of Sessions Trial

Petitioner seeks to set aside the order transferring Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2020 from 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, NaugachiaSubDivision, Bhagalpur, to 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Para 1]

 Notice and Earlier Orders

The petitioner argues that the case transfer was conducted without providing any notice to him and emphasizes that similar transfer petitions had previously been dismissed by the same court. [Para 2, 3]

 Bar on Jurisdiction – Section 362 of CrPC

Petitioner relies on Supreme Court judgments to assert that the court lacks jurisdiction to review its earlier decisions, pursuant to Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Para 3, 4]

 Maintainability Under Section 407

The Court holds that the petitioner's application, challenging the transfer order under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not maintainable. Alternative remedies are available under different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Para 12, 13]

 Dismissal- The writ application is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for challenging the impugned transfer order. [Para 14, 16]

Anticipatory Bail – Rejection by High CourtThe petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offenses under Section 376 of IPC. The Court observed that the petitioner and the complainant have taken contradictory stances at different stages of the judicial process, thereby manipulating the system. The Court found it inappropriate to grant anticipatory bail in such circumstances. [Para 1, 13, 23, 24]

Victim's Allegations – Sexual Relations on Pretext of MarriageThe victim alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage. The petitioner initially denied these allegations but later claimed readiness to marry the victim. [Para 3, 4, 12, 13]

Judicial System – Manipulation by PartiesThe Court noted that both the petitioner and the complainant have manipulated the judicial system. The petitioner initially denied the allegations but later claimed willingness to marry the victim. The complainant initially opposed bail but later supported it, claiming readiness for marriage. [Para 15, 16, 17, 19]

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity for TruthThe Court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to confront the complainant and the accused and ascertain the truth. [Para 23]

Court's Role – Not a Matrimonial FacilitatorThe Court stated that it cannot act as a matrimonial facilitator and should not be used for such purposes. [Para 15, 21]

Dismissal of Bail Application

The Court dismissed the bail application, stating that it was not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. [Para 24]

Challenged Orders – Petitioner seeks to quash the lower court's dismissal of his complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C., affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge – Orders dated 03.10.2015 and 22.04.2016. [Para 1, 6]

Background Facts – The petitioner had been accused in FIR No. 521 but was subsequently acquitted. He filed a complaint under Section 195 IPC alleging that respondents knowingly provided false evidence. [Para 2-4]

Findings by Lower Courts – Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the complaint, stating there was no specific finding of false evidence provided by the respondents. [Para 5-6]

Arguments Presented – Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents knowingly provided false evidence, thus making them liable for prosecution under Section 195 IPC without the Court's initiating a complaint. [Para 8]

Statutory Provisions – Section 195 Cr.P.C. mandates that proceedings for false evidence can only be initiated by the Court or a subordinate Court. Not maintainable at the instance of a private individual. [Para 10-11]

Final Decision – High Court upheld lower courts' judgments, clarifying that there is no automatic assumption that false evidence was provided simply due to acquittal. Petition dismissed for lack of merit. [Para 12]

Criminal Revision Petition – Discharge Application – Revision petitioner, the 3rd accused, seeks discharge from the case – Offences alleged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code – Petitioner asserts innocence and non-involvement in the case – De facto complainants express no objection to discharging the petitioner – Affidavits affirming petitioner's innocence submitted – Previous attempt through Crl.M.C. No.179/2021 dismissed by the Court – Sessions Court's dismissal of Crl.M.P. No.66/2023 challenged – Alleged mistaken identity and correction acknowledged by de facto complainants – Legal considerations regarding discharge application discussed – Court emphasizes that discharge determination should not be a mini trial – Prima facie case examined – Court satisfied that there is reason to proceed against the accused – Revision petition dismissed – Direction for expeditious disposal of the case due to petitioner's job aspirations. [Para 1-16]