Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Suit for Injunction Barred by Prior Decree – Appellant-plaintiff, claiming as Karanavan of Kadapurathaillam Tarwad, filed suit for prohibitory injunction alleging unlawful possession by members of a Thavazhi – Trial Court dismissed suit as barred by res judicata based on earlier decisions (OS 47/1969 and OS 6/1975) – Held: Prior suit involved identical properties, parties, and reliefs including possession and injunction – Finding in Full Bench decision in AS 267/1979 upholding bar of res judicata operates against present claim – No new possession claimed after prior decision – Present suit not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Issue – Scope of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Trial Court decided res judicata as preliminary issue – Held: Where facts relevant to res judicata are undisputed, the issue may be determined as preliminary – Court not bound to proceed to full trial merely because mixed question of law and fact is raised – Reliance placed on Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa (AIR 2021 SC 4523) [Paras 10–11, 13].

Customary Law – Marumakkathayam – Reversionary Rights – Plaintiff claimed reversion of thavazhi property (attalodukkam) on extinction of female line – Earlier judgments had already adjudicated on such reversionary claim – Re-litigation barred [Paras 2–6].

Civil Procedure – Fresh Suit on Possession – When Earlier Suit Involved Same Relief – Appellant contended that possession as on date of suit was not adjudicated earlier – Held: Prior suits involved claims for possession and injunction over same properties – No claim of fresh possession after previous decree – No ground to reopen issue – Suit barred [Para 13].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Trial court rightly held suit to be barred by res judicata – Res judicata can be determined as preliminary issue where relevant facts are undisputed – No interference warranted with judgment and decree of the District Court, Lakshadweep dated 05.06.2015 in OS No. 7 of 2012 [Paras 12–13].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Vague Allegations and Police Cases – Divorce Denied – Appellants, two brothers, filed separate divorce petitions under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA alleging cruelty by their wives who are sisters – Alleged incidents included quarrels, assaults, poisoning, FIRs and refusal to attend last rites – All FIRs ended in acquittal or compounding – No medical or independent evidence produced – Held: Allegations were vague, general and unsupported – Mere registration of FIRs without conviction or supporting proof cannot constitute cruelty – Appeals dismissed [Paras 6–9, 18–29].

Cruelty – Evidentiary Threshold – Section 13(1)(ia) HMA – Proof Required – Family Court rightly held that allegations of cruelty must be specific and substantiated – No evidence of poisoning or Kalendra proceedings produced – FIR-based allegations unsupported by medical records or independent testimony – Respondents acquitted, and allegations found to be part of domestic discord – Held: Standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, but even that not satisfied in present case [Paras 21–25].

Separation – Long Duration Alone Not Cruelty – No Irretrievable Breakdown Proven – Appellants relied on prolonged separation of over 13 years to seek divorce – Held: Long separation, in absence of intent to reconcile or abusive conduct by respondent, cannot per se constitute cruelty – Appellants themselves unwilling to resume cohabitation – Reliance on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli found misplaced [Paras 27–28].

Burden of Proof – Non-Examination of Key Witness – Adverse Inference – Appellants failed to examine any independent witness or produce credible documentary evidence – Plaintiff Devender Kumar admitted in cross-examination unwillingness to live with respondent – Held: Mere allegations without proof cannot sustain divorce on grounds of cruelty [Paras 21–23, 26].

Decision: Divorce appeals dismissed – Family Court judgment upheld – No credible evidence of cruelty – Long separation without cohabitation not a standalone ground for divorce – Parties left to bear their own costs [Paras 29–30].

Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Gratuity and Provident Fund – Original writ petitioner was the dependent and physically incapacitated brother of deceased Assistant Teacher who died in service – Succession certificate obtained – Court held that even though not a minor, incapacity due to disability qualifies as dependency under Clause 5(s)(1) – Directed authorities to release gratuity and provident fund subject to proof of succession – Held: Petitioner entitled to terminal benefits [Paras 12-15, 17-18]

Family Pension – Scope of Eligibility – Under Clause 5(s)(2) of 1981 Scheme, only spouse, minor children, and dependent parents eligible – Brother and sister-in-law of deceased not included – Family pension claim rejected – No surviving eligible family member after death of mother – Held: Petitioner not entitled to family pension [Paras 13, 16-17]

Administrative Law – Delay and Inaction – Authorities failed to act despite earlier High Court direction in WP 17359(W) of 2017 – Respondents raised unjustified service record queries that petitioner could not answer – Court criticized inaction and directed resolution within eight weeks – Held: Delay caused undue hardship – Respondents to act promptly [Paras 7-9, 18]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Direction to disburse gratuity and provident fund to substituted petitioner – Prayer for family pension rejected.

Motor Accident Claim – Delay in FIR – Explanation Accepted – Accident on 11.08.2010, FIR registered on 18.08.2010 – Delay explained as due to communication lapse between hospital and police – Supported by Medico Legal memo – Held: Explanation plausible – FIR and medical records sufficiently establish accident and manner of occurrence [Paras 15–17].

Negligence – Proof of Involvement of Vehicle – Though owner and driver initially disowned accident by letters (Ex.R1, R2), both admitted involvement during cross-examination – FIR, medical evidence, and testimony of motorcycle rider (PW-2) corroborate accident – Held: Auto driver negligent – Insurer liable to indemnify owner [Paras 17–18].

Causation – Contributory Factors – Medical evidence revealed deceased had chronic liver disease, obesity, smoking history – Death resulted from “complications of head injury” – Held: Though contributory factors existed, accident remained proximate cause of death – No deduction warranted solely on that basis [Para 18].

Non-joinder of Parties – Motorcycle Not Insured – Deceased was pillion rider – Motorcycle owner not impleaded – However, since offending auto caused accident, insurer’s liability unaffected [Para 19].

Compensation – Salary Components – Inclusion of Allowances – Deceased was Senior Manager at Motorola earning ₹1,96,173.35 per month – Held: HRA, LTA, Medical and Car Lease Allowances to be included in income – Special/Conveyance Allowance excluded as reimbursement – Income tax and professional tax deducted – Monthly income fixed at ₹1,60,000 [Paras 27–30].

Future Prospects and Multiplier – Deceased aged 37 years – 50% added towards future prospects – 1/4th deducted for personal expenses – Multiplier ‘15’ applied – Loss of dependency computed at ₹3.24 crore [Paras 31–33].

Medical Expenses – Medi-claim Policy – Reimbursement proved – Premium paid by employer through salary deduction – Only ₹200 per month deductible considered – No separate compensation allowed for reimbursed medical expenses [Paras 21–23].

Quantum – Modified Award – Tribunal’s award of ₹2.99 crore enhanced to ₹3.26 crore – Apportionment revised – Wife ₹1 crore, two minors ₹75 lakh each, parents ₹38.18 lakh each – Interest at 7.5% p.a. maintained – Insurer directed to deposit within 8 weeks [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Appeal by Insurance Company dismissed – Appeal by Claimants partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to ₹3.26 crore with 7.5% interest – Apportionment and deposit directions as per Court’s order.

Service Law – Inter se Seniority – Assistant Commandants in SSB – Seniority lists issued in 2020 challenged by promotees, LDCE appointees, and direct recruits – Issue revolves around whether seniority should be fixed under Rule 5(2) (order of selection) or Rule 5(3)(iv) (date of continuous appointment) of the 2010 Recruitment Rules – Court holds that 2003 Rules stood fully superseded by 2010 Rules and were not applicable [Paras 25.1, 30(i)]

Statutory Interpretation – Supersession Clause – 2012 Recruitment Rules did not wholly supersede the 2010 Rules – Seniority clause (Rule 5) of 2010 Rules continued to apply – Use of phrase “method of recruitment” in preamble not wide enough to include provisions on seniority – 2010 Rules governed the issue of seniority post-2012 [Paras 25.5–25.9, 30(ii)–(iii)]

Seniority – Interpretation of “Order of Selection” – Rule 5(2) of 2010 Rules refers to “order of selection” but Rules do not define the term – Court holds that in absence of internal guidance, reliance on DOPT OM dated 24 June 1978 impermissible – OM held inapplicable as no recruitment roster exists in SSB – Seniority cannot be based on DOPT OM [Paras 28.1–28.4, 30(iv)–(v)]

Seniority – Applicable Rule – Where Rule 5(2) cannot be applied due to lack of definitional clarity, fallback is Rule 5(3)(iv) which mandates fixation of seniority based on date of continuous appointment – Held: Inter se seniority among all ACs (direct recruits, promotees, LDCE) must be determined under Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 27.4–27.5, 29.1–30(vi)]

Administrative Instructions – DOPT OMs & Parmar Case – Court rejects applicability of DOPT OMs dated 7 February 1986, 3 July 1986, 4 March 2014, and 13 August 2021, as well as Parmar judgment – Held: These are executive instructions and cannot override statutory rules – Not applicable where Rules exist [Paras 25.10, 30(vii)]

Seniority List – Validity – Final seniority lists dated 21 and 23 September 2020 quashed – Draft seniority list dated 5 June 2018 correctly applied Rule 5(3)(iv) for ACs appointed 2003–2012 – Court directs SSB to redraw seniority for all ACs including 2013–2016 appointees as per Rule 5(3)(iv) [Paras 29.2–29.3, 30(viii)]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Final seniority lists dated 21/09/2020 and 23/09/2020 quashed – SSB directed to reissue seniority lists applying Rule 5(3)(iv) of 2010 Recruitment Rules for all Assistant Commandants, irrespective of mode of recruitment or year of appointment – No costs.

Banking Law - Debt Recovery – SARFAESI Proceedings – Maintainability of Writ – Appellant, a Small Enterprise under the MSMED Act, challenged action taken by the Bank under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act citing failure to follow RBI’s rehabilitation guidelines – Contended that Bank could not invoke SARFAESI without exploring rehabilitation under 2015 RBI Notification – High Court held that since the grievance arose from action under Section 13(4), remedy under Section 17 before DRT was available – Writ petition rightly dismissed by Single Judge for availability of alternate remedy [Paras 2, 5–8]

Debt Recovery Tribunal – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act – Appellant argued that DRT lacked jurisdiction as the challenge was to the very applicability of SARFAESI – Rejected – Held: Section 17(1) permits any aggrieved person to approach DRT against measures under Section 13(4), including cases where SARFAESI action is alleged to be invalid ab initio – Jurisdiction of DRT not ousted – No fault found with Single Judge’s reasoning [Paras 6–8]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Writ petition rightly not entertained – Appellant directed to avail remedy before DRT [Para 9]

Motor Accident – Compensation – Enhancement of Award – Claimant, a government employee, sustained grievous injuries including facial disfigurement and loss of teeth in a motor vehicle accident involving a Tata Truck – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,27,160/- but granted only Rs. 2,160/- towards medical expenses despite documentary evidence of higher costs – On appeal, High Court found that medical bills and other heads of compensation were inadequately assessed – Held: Medical expenses enhanced based on admissible bills agreed upon by both parties – Compensation for pain and suffering, transportation, and diet also enhanced by consensus [Paras 2–9]

Motor Accident – Determination of Compensation – Judicial Review – Court noted that parties reached consensus on admissible medical bills and other heads – Award modified to grant enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,98,765/- in total – Interest awarded from the date of filing the claim with additional interest of 1% in case of delay in payment – Direction issued for insurer to deposit enhanced compensation within six weeks [Paras 10–12]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,98,765/- – Enhanced amount to carry interest from 03/11/2016 at FD bank rate – Additional 1% interest applicable if payment not made within stipulated time – Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced amount before Tribunal within six weeks.

Criminal Law – Assault – Acquittal Reversed – Respondents alleged to have assaulted complainant and his wife with broken glass bottle – Trial Court acquitted accused under Section 324/34 IPC holding prosecution evidence unreliable – High Court finds complainant’s testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and arrest memos – Held: Testimony of PW1 supported by MLCs proves infliction of simple injuries beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal order set aside – Conviction recorded under Section 323/34 IPC [Paras 5, 18–27, 30–31].

Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of Injured Witness – Complainant’s version of events remained consistent with FIR and deposition – Minor inconsistencies regarding site plan and signatures on police documents do not justify rejection of entire testimony – Failure to examine second injured or IO not fatal as primary evidence sufficient – Trial Court erred in disbelieving complainant in toto [Paras 20–27].

Weapon – Dangerous Weapon – Section 324 IPC – Burden of Proof – Complainant claimed injuries caused by broken bottle – Medical report showed sharp injuries to complainant and blunt injuries to wife – No glass shards recovered – Held: In absence of recovery or clarity about nature of glass, prosecution failed to prove use of dangerous weapon – Conviction sustainable only under Section 323 IPC [Para 28].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 11.09.2018 set aside – Respondents convicted under Section 323/34 IPC.

Service Law – Refixation of Pay – Retrospective Promotion – Re-option for Pay Revisions – Retired Administrative Assistant granted retrospective promotion to Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 01.11.1971 – Re-option request for 1973, 1978 and 1983 pay revisions rejected as delayed – Tribunal found re-option inadmissible due to absence of retrospective revision in pay scale – However, directed State to implement earlier order granting notional re-fixation of pay (Annexure A2) – Held: Tribunal justified in directing implementation of order already sanctioned but not acted upon [Paras 2, 3, 4, 13, 14]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings of Tribunal unless order is perverse, patently unreasonable or violates basic principles of justice – Tribunal’s direction found consistent with settled legal principles and not warranting interference – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–12, 14]

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s direction to implement Annexure A2 upheld – No grounds for interference under Article 227.