Railways Act – Compensation for Untoward Incident – Death of Bona Fide Passenger – Presumption of Travel – Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A – Deceased died after accidentally falling from a moving train between Gopalapatnam and Duvvada – Inquest report, post-mortem report, police records all confirmed accidental fall – Held: Deceased was a bona fide passenger and the death was due to an untoward incident – Tribunal rightly awarded ₹8,00,000 as compensation under revised Schedule w.e.f. 01.01.2017 [Paras 2, 7–9, 17–20, 22].

Compensation – Interest on Award – Claim for Pendente Lite Interest Rejected – Tribunal’s Decision Upheld – Appellants argued that interest should be granted from date of claim filing – Tribunal awarded interest only from the effective date of revised compensation Schedule (01.01.2017) – Held: No illegality found in denying pendente lite interest where claim amount originally sought was lower than final award under revised Schedule – Award upheld [Paras 3(iii), 21].

Burden of Proof – Bona Fide Passengership – Presumption and Rebuttal – Liberal Interpretation – Recovery of journey ticket and consistent contemporaneous documentary evidence (inquest, police, medical reports) created strong presumption of lawful travel – No rebuttal by Railways – Legal presumption under Union of India v. Rina Devi and Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar applied – Liberal interpretation of "untoward incident" favoured in compensation cases [Paras 13–19].

Evidence Law – Probative Value of Departmental Reports vs Police Records – Court held DRM’s departmental report had limited probative value due to lack of contemporaneity – Police and medical records found more credible – DRM report cannot override conclusive public documents [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Tribunal’s finding that death was caused by an untoward incident upheld – Deceased declared a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation under Section 124A – Award of ₹8,00,000 affirmed – No interference warranted with Tribunal’s decision not to grant interest from date of claim application – Tribunal directed to release 50% of compensation to appellants; remainder to be kept in fixed deposit for five years or until further order [Paras 22–25].

Panchayat Law – No Confidence Motion – Statutory Notice Requirements – Mandatory Compliance – Resolution Not Accompanying Notice – Notice Invalid – Under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, the Sub-Divisional Officer is mandated to issue a notice of the No Confidence Motion accompanied by both the requisition and a copy of the proposed resolution – In the present case, the notice dated 29.11.2024 was not accompanied by the proposed resolution – Held: Provision is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the notice invalid – Ouster of elected Sarpanch without strict adherence to prescribed procedure impermissible [Paras 4.1, 4.2, 4.4]

Interpretation of Statutes – Use of ‘Shall’ – Directory vs. Mandatory – Election Law Context – Section 24(2)(c) repeatedly uses the term “shall” – Legislative intent evident in prescribing clear procedural safeguards before removing a directly elected Sarpanch – Court held that every component of the provision must be given effect – Reading down the requirement would render part of the section otiose and violate legislative intent – Held: Provision must be construed as mandatory, not directory [Paras 4.3, 4.4(i)–(iv)]

Election Law – Applicability to Local Self-Government – Removal of Elected Representatives – Removal of a Sarpanch amounts to nullifying democratic mandate – Principles applicable to legislative elections under Representation of People Act are equally applicable to Panchayat elections under Part IX of Constitution – Citing Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, Court reiterated that election law must be strictly construed and followed – Removal not permissible without due process [Paras 4.5(i)–(iii)]

Precedent – Conflicting Division Bench Judgments – Larger Bench Resolution – Prahallad Dalai Followed – Pramod Kumar Sahu Overruled – Larger Bench resolved interpretive conflict between earlier Division Bench rulings – Held: Prahallad Dalai v. State of Odisha, AIR 2014 Ori 179 laid down the correct law – Pramod Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha, WA No. 3473 of 2024, departed from statutory text and legislative intent and was overruled [Paras 4.6(i)–(ii), 4.7]

Principles of Natural Justice – Notice Requirement – Fair Participation in No Confidence Motion – Notice must inform elected representatives of both requisition and resolution to ensure meaningful participation in proceedings – Omission to supply draft resolution deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond and defend – Procedural fairness embedded in statutory text [Paras 4.4(iv), 4.5]

Statutory Interpretation – No Scope for Harmonious Construction When Text is Clear – Literal Rule Applied – Where language of provision is clear and unambiguous, court held that no interpretation is required – Principles of harmonious construction not applicable in absence of any internal contradiction – Reiterated rule that what is prescribed by law must be followed as such [Paras 4.4(iv), 4.7(ii)]

Decision: Reference answered – Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 is mandatory – Notice of No Confidence Motion must be accompanied by both requisition and proposed resolution – Non-compliance renders the notice and consequent removal invalid – Appeal to be placed before Roster Bench for final adjudication in light of this interpretation.

Civil Law - Temple Property – Fraudulent Decree – Pujari’s Lack of Ownership – Decree dated 10.01.1997 obtained by suppression, forged will, and concealment of necessary parties – Fraud vitiates all judicial acts – Pujari only a manager, not owner – Deity is juristic person; property vests in deity with State as guardian – Res judicata not attracted – Trial Court justified in declaring earlier decree void ab initio – Appeal dismissed [Paras 35–45, 56–57].

Fraud on Court – Nullity of Decree – Principles – Held: Judgment and decree dated 10.01.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 42-A/1996 obtained by deliberate suppression of necessary facts, non-disclosure of earlier litigation, concealment of rejection of forged will, and non-joinder of deity and Aukaf Committee – Applying S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, A.V. Papayya Sastry, Smriti Madan Kansagra, Vishnu Vardhan, decree is void ab initio – Fraud unravels everything [Paras 35–41].

Temple/Deity Property – Juristic Ownership – Guardianship – Held: Murti Shri Ram Mandir is a juristic person and perpetual minor; property vests in deity; State acts as guardian for protection of endowed property – Suit correctly instituted through SDO as guardian – Valid in law [Paras 49–51].

Pujari – Status and Rights – Managerial but not Proprietary Rights – Held: Pujari is only a manager/custodian, not an owner; cannot acquire Bhumiswami rights; cannot claim through guru-chela lineage; revenue entries of possession do not confer title – Reliance placed on State of M.P. v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (2021) 10 SCC 222, Mst. Kanchaniya, Kal Bhairav Trust [Paras 52–54].

Will of Guru Narayandas – Found Forged – Handwriting expert report (Ex. P/14), complaint (Ex. P/12), and admission of DW-1 establish fabrication – Gokuldas’ claim of succession rejected; his appointment as Pujari earlier set aside by Commissioner – His assertion of ownership illegal [Paras 40–41].

Res Judicata – Not Applicable – Held: Principle inapplicable where earlier decree obtained by fraud – Order dated 30.11.2006 already held suit maintainable; attained finality – Fraud is an exception to res judicata; decree can be challenged at any stage [Paras 42–44].

Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC – No Bar – Earlier decree not a compromise decree; deity was not a party to earlier suit; therefore, bar under Rule 3-A does not apply [Para 43].

Revenue Records – Presumptive Value Only – Held: Revenue entries (Ex. D/1–D/68) show possession for management; cannot prove title – Property recorded as “Murti Shri Ram Mandir Mafi Okaf” (Ex. P/10) confirms ownership of deity – Follows Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269 [Paras 45–47].

Pujari’s Eligibility – Customary Tradition – Gokuldas’ two marriages violated celibate Nihang tradition of math; disqualified from claiming spiritual succession – No personal or hereditary right to property [Para 55].

Maintainability – Suit by Deity – Valid – Learned Trial Court correctly held suit maintainable and not hit by technical bars – State rightly represented deity as guardian [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007 affirming that decree dated 10.01.1997 was void ab initio upheld – Earlier decree obtained by fraud, concealment of essential facts, forged will, and non-joinder of necessary parties – Deity is owner of property; Pujari only a manager – Suit validly instituted through State as guardian – No error in Trial Court findings – No order as to costs – Pending IAs closed [Paras 56–57].

Civil Law - Surplus Area Declaration – Mandatory Notice to Tenants – Rule 6 of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956 – Held: It is mandatory for the Collector to serve notice upon tenants in cultivating possession before declaring land as surplus. Where revenue records (Jamabandis 1950-1981) consistently showed plaintiffs as tenants, an order passed declaring land surplus without notice to them is in complete violation of statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. Such an order is void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law. [Paras 16, 19-20].

Vesting of Land in State – Section 12(3) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Validity of Foundation Order – Held: Vesting of surplus land in the State postulates a valid surplus declaration. If the foundational order (1961 surplus order) is void for want of notice, no vesting takes place under Section 12(3). The State cannot acquire title based on a nullity, and consequently, cannot allot such land to third parties. [Paras 17-18, 21].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Bar under Section 26 of Haryana Ceiling Act – Exception for Void Orders – Held: The bar on Civil Court jurisdiction applies only to orders passed within jurisdiction by prescribed authorities. It does not apply where the foundational order is a nullity or void ab initio. The Civil Court retains jurisdiction to examine and set aside orders passed without complying with mandatory statutory procedures (specifically notice under Rule 6). [Paras 22-23].

Limitation – Suit for Possession based on Title – Article 65 Limitation Act – Held: A suit seeking recovery of possession based on title is governed by Article 65 (12 years limitation), not Article 58. Limitation does not run in favor of a party who takes possession under a void and non-est order. [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Concurrent findings of Courts below affirmed. [Para 28].

NDPS Act – Regular bail – Section 37 – Commercial quantity – Recovery of 710 kg poppy husk from vehicle – Petitioners Gurjeet Singh @ Bhura Fauji and Satguru Singh apprehended at spot – Co-accused Lali and Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh implicated through disclosure statements – Challan filed and trial underway – Only 2 out of 34 witnesses examined and 15 given up – Held – Alleged quantity being commercial – and in view of nature and seriousness of offence – petitioners must satisfy twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act – On material on record no reasonable ground made out to believe petitioners are not guilty – or that they are not likely to commit offence while on bail – Rigours of Section 37 not satisfied – Bail declined [Paras 3–6, 8–9, 9.3].

NDPS Act – Long incarceration – Article 21 – Regular bail on ground of custody length – Petitioners Gurjeet and Satguru in custody since 10.06.2024 – about 1½ years – Petitioners Lali and Jagtar in custody since March 2025 – about 8 months – Held – In view of recent Supreme Court decisions stressing gravity of organised drug trafficking and strict application of Section 37 NDPS Act – mere period of custody of 1½ years in case carrying punishment of 10–20 years cannot be termed unreasonably long – Long incarceration by itself not sufficient to dilute Section 37 requirements – especially where serious allegations and commercial quantity are involved [Paras 5–6, 8–9].

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure statements as sole basis for implication of some accused – Petitioners Lali and Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh implicated only on basis of disclosure of co-accused – Argument that such implication is weak and that mandatory provisions not complied with – Held – At bail stage – in prosecution involving commercial quantity – Court not to conduct mini-trial – When overall material including recovery of huge commercial quantity and allegations of organised activity exist – disclosure-based implication alone does not enable satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 – No case made out for regular bail [Paras 4–6, 8–9].

Drugs Menace – Policy concern – Public health crisis – Supreme Court guidance – Court places reliance on UOI v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade SLP (Crl.) No. 9792/2025 and UOI v. Vigin K. Varghese SLP (Crl.) No. 7768/2025 – noting Supreme Court’s emphasis that drug abuse is a pervasive global and national menace – destructive of youth and social fabric – and that Courts must be slow in granting bail in serious NDPS cases involving commercial quantity – unless statutory conditions are clearly met – Held – These principles weigh heavily against relaxation of Section 37 rigours in present case [Para 8(i)–(ii)].

Section 37 NDPS – Interpretation – High Court’s own precedent – Court reiterates principles laid down in Jaswinder Singh @ Kala v. State of Punjab CRM-M-33729-2025 = 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4537 – that (i) twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are cumulative and in addition to ordinary bail tests – (ii) long incarceration may relax rigours only where delay is not attributable to accused and custody is truly excessive – and (iii) Court must sift material to form prima facie view but not enter into full-scale appreciation of evidence – Held – Applying these postulates to facts – petitioners fail to cross Section 37 threshold [Para 8(iii)].

Medical grounds for bail – NDPS – Petitioner Jagtar @ Kari @ Jagtar Singh – old fracture and chronic osteomyelitis – Medical board report indicates right tibia fracture operated 27 years back – implant in situ – fracture united – superficial chronic ulcer requiring regular dressing and antibiotics – ankle fixed in plantar flexion – walking with limp – no surgery required – Held – Condition neither serious nor life-threatening – treatment possible in jail – Medical ground insufficient to override rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Regular bail refused [Paras 5.1, 9.1–9.2].

Section 37 NDPS – Antecedents – Relevance – Custody certificates show petitioners Gurjeet and Satguru involved in other FIRs while Lali and Jagtar have no other FIRs – Held – Antecedents are relevant component of “likely to commit any offence while on bail” limb – prior involvement of some petitioners reinforces refusal of bail – For others with clean record – seriousness of role and commercial quantity still prevents satisfaction of first limb (reasonable grounds of non-guilt) – hence no bail to any petitioner [Paras 6, 9, 9.3].

Decision: Bail petitions dismissed – Petitions under Section 483 BNSS for regular bail in FIR No. 83 dated 10.06.2024 under Sections 15, 25 and 29 NDPS Act relating to recovery of 710 kg poppy husk rejected – Court holds that petitioners have failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – long custody and medical condition of one petitioner not sufficient to dilute statutory rigours in a commercial quantity case – Trial to proceed uninfluenced by any observations in order [Paras 9, 9.3, 10–11].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Refusal to Accept Summons – Presumption of Service – Summons sent to Appellant’s known addresses returned with endorsements of “refused” – Legal notices had also been previously served at same addresses – Appellant failed to rebut presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act – Held: Service was duly effected, and ex parte decree justified [Paras 23–34, 42–44, 49].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Delay of 43 days in filing application to set aside ex parte decree not supported by sufficient cause – Conduct showed negligence and lack of bona fides – Court reiterates that “sufficient cause” must be proven with due diligence and not invoked casually [Paras 18, 46–50].

Civil Procedure – Refusal of Summons – Legal Presumption – Court reiterates legal principle that refusal to accept summons amounts to valid service – Relied on Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545 and Vishwabandhu v. Sri Krishna, (2021) 19 SCC 549 – No evidence of impeccable character adduced by Appellant to rebut legal presumption of service [Paras 40–44, 48–49].

Civil Procedure – Bona Fides and Diligence – Appellant failed to appear or respond until execution commenced – Alleged lack of knowledge disproved by tracking reports and prior service – Plea of false address and lack of notice rejected as frivolous – Court held that appellant’s conduct reflected clear neglect [Paras 35, 37–39, 50].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Requisites under Order IX Rule 13 – Either improper service or sufficient cause must be established – Both not satisfied in present case – High Court upholds Trial Court’s rejection of application to set aside decree [Paras 12, 48, 51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC rightly rejected – Ex parte decree stands confirmed – Pending applications rendered infructuous

Hindu Law – Widow’s Right – Coparcenary Property – Agricultural Land – Injunction Granted – Trial Court wrongly held that widow (Veeramma) had no right over agricultural land under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 – High Court held that such land is included within "property" in light of later Supreme Court decisions – Vendors had prima facie title – Plaintiffs held entitled to injunction based on de jure possession – Trial Court’s dismissal of suit reversed [Paras 33–41, 46–51].

Civil Procedure – Execution Sale Deed – Validity – Title Not Conferred – Defendant No.3 relied on sale deed obtained through execution of decree in earlier specific performance suit – High Court found sale deed (Ex.B.14) was not in conformity with appellate decree – No proper compliance with Order 21 Rule 34 CPC – Held: Sale deed invalid and ineffective in conferring title – Defendant No.3 failed to establish lawful possession [Paras 53–64].

Land Records – Sub-Division and Mutation – Lack of Notice – Unreliable Evidence – Mutation proceedings that created new survey numbers were post-suit and conducted without notice to plaintiffs – Testimony of D.W.2 (Survey Official) found inconsistent and unreliable – Documents (Exs. B28–B30) not credible – No proof of possession or title in favour of Defendant No.3 [Paras 65–68].

Appeal – Maintainability – Findings vs. Decree – No Adverse Decree Against Appellants in A.S. No. 372/2009 – Defendants 5 to 7 filed appeal without adverse decree – Mere findings do not confer right to appeal – No independent right shown over disputed property – Appeal not maintainable – Dismissed with no relief granted [Paras 70–83].

Decision: A.S. No. 156 of 2009 allowed – Decree and judgment of the Trial Court dated 26.02.2009 set aside – Suit decreed in favour of plaintiffs with permanent injunction granted restraining interference with their peaceful possession.

A.S. No. 372 of 2009 dismissed – No order as to costs.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Share Application Money – Section 68 – Evidentiary Value of Statements under Section 131 – ITAT erred in holding that authorities have no power to administer oath under Section 131 – High Court held that such statements are admissible and Section 131 explicitly empowers authorities to examine persons on oath – First question of law answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 4.10–4.12].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Addition based on vague statements – Statement of Mahendra Kumar Sethia found vague, lacking specific allegation that cash was received from assessee – No corroborative material to establish cash trail – ITAT’s reappreciation of evidence not perverse – Fourth question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 7.1–7.4].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Reliance on prior judgment – ITAT rightly relied on High Court decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2007–08 – Legal principles laid down in Lovely Exports and prior case applicable even after insertion of 2012 provisos – Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness remain primary tests – Third question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 6.1–6.12].

Income Tax – Section 56(2)(viib) – Fair Market Value of Shares – Valuation by assessee not specifically questioned by AO – ITAT held that AO must record judicially justifiable dissatisfaction before rejecting valuation – Addition not sustainable without proper analysis under Rule 11UA – Second question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 8.1–8.5].

Income Tax – Lease Rent Paid to Director – Section 40A(2)(a) – ITAT remanded issue for fresh consideration regarding lease rent paid to Director – Assessment must consider prevailing market rates, amenities, and statutory provisions – Remand upheld – No substantial question of law arises – Fifth question in TCA No.14/2020 answered accordingly [Paras 9.1–9.5].

Income Tax – Disallowance under Sections 36(1)(iii) and 36(1)(va) – Lease advance and employee contributions – ITAT remanded issue without properly examining business necessity or timing of payment – High Court held remand order to be legally infirm – ITAT directed to reconsider in accordance with law – Fifth and sixth questions of law in TCA Nos.15 and 16 of 2020 answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 10.1–10.9].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – First question of law answered in favour of Revenue – Second, third and fourth questions of law answered in favour of Assessee – No question of law arises on fifth question in TCA No.14/2020 – Fifth and sixth questions in TCA Nos.15 and 16 of 2020 answered in favour of Revenue – Matter remanded to ITAT for re-examination on Sections 36(1)(iii) and 36(1)(va) [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for cruelty to wife based on letters and testimony of her family members – Prosecution relied on letters Exhs.13, 15, 16 to allege mental and physical harassment and financial demands – Defence produced 17 letters and medical documents evidencing cordial relations and longstanding illness of the deceased – Daughter (P.W.4) of deceased denied any cruelty and stated mother was mentally and physically ill – Held: Letters fail to establish cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC – Matrimonial life lasted 13 years with no proximate cause for suicide linked to accused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1, 6, 15–16, 19–24]

Evidence – Suicide – Abetment under Section 306 IPC – Presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act not attracted – Trial court acquitted accused of abetment to suicide and Dowry Prohibition Act offences – High Court found no proximate or immediate instigation or harassment leading to suicide – Suicide occurred nine years after letter relied upon by prosecution – Letters and oral testimonies lacked direct connection to incident – Held: No evidence of abetment – Presumption under Section 113A not triggered due to marriage exceeding 7 years and lack of cruelty [Paras 4.5, 16.4, 21–22]

Dowry Prohibition Act – Charges under Sections 4 and 5 – No proof of dowry demand or unlawful financial coercion – Letters by deceased herself sought money voluntarily for personal reasons – Trial court rightly acquitted under Dowry Prohibition Act – Appellate Court concurred [Paras 3.1, 15.1–15.2]

Witness Testimony – Family Members and Neighbours – Allegations general and uncorroborated – Complainant and brother gave vague assertions of harassment without specifying nature, dates, or amounts – Independent witnesses either hostile or did not support prosecution – Daughter's testimony exculpatory – Held: Witnesses failed to substantiate charge beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 6–11]

Circumstantial Evidence – Letters and Communications – Letters written between parties spanned over a decade – Prosecution’s key exhibits showed marital discord but not cruelty as defined under law – Defence letters demonstrated husband’s concern and efforts at reconciliation – Communication about scooter showed no dishonest intent – Held: Circumstances do not satisfy standard for conviction under 498A [Paras 8, 15–16]

Standard of Proof – Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Court emphasized settled principle that charges under Section 498A and related presumptions must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Cited multiple Supreme Court decisions clarifying limitations of Section 113A and importance of proximate causation in suicide cases [Paras 18–22]

Appeal – Maintainability after Death of Accused – Appeal validly continued by legal heirs under Section 394(2) CrPC – Heirs included as per definition of "near relatives" – No procedural infirmity [Para 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC set aside – Deceased accused acquitted – Letters and testimonies insufficient to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide – Trial court’s reliance on documents and assumptions held erroneous – Record and proceedings remanded to trial court [Para 26]