Criminal Law – Rape – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Conviction Sustained – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based on sole testimony of prosecutrix – Trial court's judgment upheld – High Court finds testimony of prosecutrix consistent, credible, and corroborated by FIR (Ex. PW3/A), medical evidence (MLC Ex. PW2/A), FSL reports (Ex. PW9/D and PW9/E), and supporting witnesses (PW-4 and PW-6) – Minor inconsistencies in testimony not material – Absence of injuries not fatal – Held: Sole testimony of prosecutrix, if trustworthy, sufficient for conviction – No ground to interfere with conviction [Paras 7.1, 7.2, 9–11].

Criminal Law – Rape – Sentence Modification – Mitigating Factors – Sentence reduced to period undergone – Though conviction confirmed, sentence of 10 years' RI modified – Court considers appellant’s age (48 years), family circumstances (ailing wife, dependent children), satisfactory jail conduct, non-misuse of bail, lapse of 23 years since offence, and victim's disinterest in continuing litigation – Held: Principles of reformative justice warrant sentence modification – Sentence reduced to period already undergone (approx. 5 years 2 months) without impacting the gravity of the offence [Paras 12–15].

Sentencing Principles – Reformative Approach – Role of Mitigating Circumstances – Emphasis on rehabilitation – Reliance placed on Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of A.P., (1977) 3 SCC 287 and Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1104 – Court reiterates need to balance deterrence with reform, especially in long-pending prosecutions involving non-habitual offenders [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Conviction under Section 376 IPC affirmed – Sentence modified to period already undergone – Appeal partly allowed – Copy of judgment directed to be sent to Trial Court and Jail Superintendent [Paras 15–17].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 24 - Transfer Application - Maintainability of Second Transfer Application - High Court cannot entertain a second transfer application under Section 24 CPC on the same facts if a similar application was dismissed by the District Judge, without challenging the District Judge's order.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 24 - The applicant sought transfer of an execution petition, alleging favouritism by the executing court towards the respondent whose son is an advocate - An initial transfer application filed before the District Judge was dismissed on 01.09.2025 - The present application is a second transfer application under Section 24 CPC before the High Court, seeking the same relief on the same grounds - The respondent challenged its maintainability - The High Court, relying on precedents, held that the power under Section 24 CPC is concurrent for the High Court and District Court, and the word "or" is disjunctive - Therefore, a party cannot move both courts in succession - An order passed by the District Judge under Section 24 CPC is a "case decided" and can only be challenged through a revision under Section 115 CPC or a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, not by filing a fresh transfer application before the High Court - The High Court cannot sit as a revisional or appellate court over the District Judge's order in a fresh Section 24 application - Consequently, the second transfer application was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the applicant to seek appropriate statutory remedy - Paras 1-42.

Decision: Transfer application dismissed - Applicant granted liberty to seek appropriate statutory remedy under the law - Stay application and pending civil misc. applications disposed of - Paras 43, 44.

Eviction Suit – Licence vs. Lease – Agreements styled as Leave and Licence – Trial Court dismissed suits holding no cause of action on ground that defendants had no exclusive possession – Held: Absence of exclusive possession is an essential ingredient of licence and not proof of plaintiff’s possession – Trial Court’s reasoning perverse and contrary to settled principles – Impugned judgments set aside [Paras 36–40].

First Appeal – Powers of Appellate Court – Order XLI Rules 24 and 33 CPC – Suits dismissed ex parte on erroneous preliminary reasoning – Evidence on record sufficient – Remand would revive lost defence and prolong litigation – Held: First appellate court, being last court of facts, justified in deciding suits on merits without remand [Paras 41–47].

Order XXII Rule 10 CPC – Transferee pendente lite – Locus Standi – Purchaser of suit property in liquidation sale substituted as appellant – Validity of title not set aside by any competent forum – Article 137 Limitation Act inapplicable – Right to prosecute appeal is continuous – Held: Substituted appellant has locus standi to continue and prosecute appeals [Paras 48–54].

Jurisdiction – City Civil Court vs. Presidency Small Cause Court – Section 19(d), Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – Small Cause Court barred from entertaining regular suits for recovery of immovable property – Proceedings under Sections 41–43 of 1882 Act are summary and optional – Held: Regular eviction suits against licensees maintainable before City Civil Court – Jurisdictional objection rejected [Paras 55–75].

Leave and Licence – Determination of Jural Relationship – Clauses denying tenancy rights – No exclusive possession – Licensor’s right of entry and control retained – Common amenities and sub-metered electricity – Clause expressly excluding tenancy decisive – Held: Relationship between parties is licensor-licensee and not landlord-tenant [Paras 76–94].

Rent Control Proceedings – Effect – Orders under Sections 27 and 36 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Held: Rent Controller is not a civil court – Such orders are not conclusive on status of parties – Civil court’s determination prevails [Para 95].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments and decrees of dismissal set aside – Decrees of eviction granted in favour of the appellant in both suits – Respondents granted 90 days’ time to hand over vacant and peaceful possession – No order as to costs – Interim orders vacated.

Arbitration Law – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Insurance Claim Dispute – Insurer challenged arbitral award granting compensation for fire damage under Industrial All Risk Policy – High Court reiterated that re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of arbitral view with court’s view is impermissible under Section 34 – Held: Award neither perverse nor suffering from patent illegality or conflict with public policy [Paras 14, 29, 34].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 26 – Appointment of Expert – Arbitral Tribunal appointed independent expert suo motu to assist on technical issues relating to loss assessment – Objection that expert acted as “second surveyor” rejected – Held: Appointment of expert under Section 26 is distinct from appointment of surveyor under Insurance Act and is within arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction [Paras 16–18].

Insurance Law – Section 64-UM, Insurance Act, 1938 – Surveyor’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Surveyor’s assessment recommending only 20% loss held to be ad-hoc, perfunctory and unsupported by cogent reasons – Reiterated that surveyor’s report is recommendatory and not binding on insurer, insured or arbitral tribunal – Tribunal justified in departing from surveyor’s findings for recorded reasons [Paras 21, 25].

Expert Evidence – Weight and Appreciation – Expert appointed by tribunal suggested 25% loss of Hydraulic Oil and Thermic Fluid – Tribunal disagreed after detailed reasoning – Held: Expert opinion is advisory and not binding – Tribunal entitled to accept or reject expert view with reasons – No illegality in awarding 70% loss based on overall material, circumstances and documentary evidence [Paras 22–24, 29].

Assessment of Damages – Rough and Ready Method – Guess Work Permissible – Tribunal relied on proved purchase of Hydraulic Oil and Thermic Fluid for restart of plant and delay/lapses in surveyor’s inspections – Held: Arbitral tribunal entitled to apply broad evaluation and reasonable estimation of loss where precise quantification is impracticable – Such approach does not constitute patent illegality [Paras 25–26].

Insurance Claim – Fire Loss – Hydraulic Oil and Thermic Fluid – Tribunal awarded 70% of claimed loss rejecting 20% and 25% assessments – Extensive fire, high temperature and delay in surveyor’s inspection justified higher assessment – Held: Findings based on evidence and probabilities – No ground for interference under Section 34 [Paras 20–29].

Insurance Claim – Platens – Acceptance of Expert Opinion – Surveyor inspected only two out of six damaged platens and rejected claim without technical tests – Expert opined that fire could damage platens – Tribunal accepted expert opinion and allowed claim – Held: Findings neither perverse nor unsupported by record [Paras 30–31].

Insurance Claim – VFD AC Drive and Pressure Transducer – Tribunal’s Findings – Claims allowed based on evidence – Insurer did not seriously press challenge – Held: No warrant for interference [Paras 32–33].

Public Policy – Patent Illegality – Test Applied – Award tested on parameters laid down in Ssangyong Engineering and PSA SICAL Terminals – Held: Award does not violate fundamental policy of Indian law nor suffer from patent illegality [Paras 7, 29, 34].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award dated 20.09.2022 upheld – No interference warranted under Section 34 – Interim Application disposed of – No further costs awarded [Para 35].

Election Law – Writ of Quo Warranto - Reservation and Caste Certificate – Requirement for Reserved Posts – Appellant contested and won election for Zila Panchayat Member from a seat reserved for OBC category – Appellant submitted an affidavit claiming OBC status ("Pal Baghele") but admittedly did not possess a caste certificate – Held: A candidate contesting for a reserved post must possess a valid caste certificate as proof of belonging to that category – Self-declaration via affidavit is insufficient to contest an election for a reserved seat – The requirement is mandatory to ensure the benefit of reservation reaches the intended beneficiaries – [Paras 11, 14].

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Maintainability after Election Petition Dismissal – Respondent No. 6 sought a writ of quo warranto challenging appellant's authority to hold office after his wife's election petition was dismissed on technical grounds – Appellant argued that the dismissal of the election petition barred the writ – Held: Dismissal of an election petition does not debar an independent voter/citizen from seeking a writ of quo warranto if the holder of the office lacks the fundamental eligibility (caste certificate) – No right can be conferred on an individual which they cannot possess under law – The writ is maintainable to prevent a usurper from holding public office – [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Interference in Election Matters – Held: While Article 329(b) bars interference during the election process, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 after the election process is over if there is a violation of constitutional provisions or statutory eligibility criteria – Allowing a person ineligible for a reserved seat to continue in office would be a fraud on the Constitution – [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The order declaring the appellant ineligible to hold the post of Member, Zila Panchayat is upheld - [Para 15].

Civil Law – Partition – Settlement Deed Not Proved – Non-Impleadment of Legal Heirs – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiff claimed 2/3rd share based on 1994 partition and a 2005 registered settlement deed from his father – Defendants (legal heirs of deceased brother) denied the settlement and asserted oral partition – Trial court decreed partition, but First Appellate Court reversed the decree on grounds that the settlement deed was not proved and all legal heirs of the father (settlor) were not impleaded – High Court held: Without proving the settlement deed and without impleading all legal heirs of the deceased co-sharer, suit for partition is not maintainable [Paras 13–16, 19]

Evidence Act – Section 68 – Proof of Attestation – Attesting Witness Must Speak to Execution – Though the settlement deed was registered, its execution was specifically denied by defendants – Attesting witness (P.W.3) did not speak about attestation in chief-examination – Held: Mere registration is not proof of valid execution – Attestation not established as per law – Plaintiff failed to discharge burden under Section 68 [Paras 15, 17]

Civil Procedure – Necessary Parties in Partition Suit – All Legal Heirs Must Be Impleaded – After death of Kuppugounder (original co-sharer), his share devolved on all legal heirs – Plaintiff failed to implead siblings (including married daughter) – Held: In absence of valid settlement deed and non-joinder of legal heirs, partition suit fails for want of necessary parties – Plaintiff given liberty to file fresh suit with all legal heirs [Paras 16, 19]

Appeals – Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Findings of Fact Upheld – Appellate court rightly found no oral partition proved, but also found settlement deed invalid – High Court held: No perversity in lower appellate findings – All substantial questions of law answered in favour of defendants – No interference warranted in second appeal [Paras 17–20]

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 8 of 2013 dated 08.12.2014 confirmed – Plaintiff given liberty to file fresh suit for partition by impleading all legal heirs and including all relevant properties – No costs.

Banking Law – Unauthorized Appropriation by Bank – Petitioner Axis Bank, despite specific orders dated 07.07.2012 and 03.06.2013 by Magistrate to hold auction proceeds in FDR till trial conclusion, appropriated Rs. 8.20 crore based on DRT's temporary direction dated 20.04.2018 – Held: Bank’s action is in gross violation of Trial Court’s binding orders and amounts to disobedience of judicial directions [Paras 1, 16–20, 23] –

Judicial Authority – Supremacy of Trial Court Directions – Orders of Trial Court, upheld by Rajasthan High Court and not interfered with by the Supreme Court (SLP withdrawn), had attained finality – DRT's order permitting temporary appropriation passed in ignorance of these binding decisions – Held: DRT order does not override Trial Court’s order – Any action contrary is non-est [Paras 12–14, 22–23] –

Rule of Law – No One Above the Law – High Court reiterates foundational constitutional principle that all authorities including banks are bound by court orders – Disobedience undermines rule of law and invites judicial censure – Court warns of consequences for future violations while taking lenient view in current case [Paras 21, 23–24] –

Interim Orders – DRT Permitting Temporary Appropriation – DRT permitted Axis Bank to appropriate auction proceeds during pendency of OA with condition to reimburse if claim fails – DRT not informed of prior criminal court directions restraining withdrawal – Held: Non-disclosure by Bank fatal – DRT order passed in ignorance cannot justify bank’s action [Paras 16–18, 22] –

Criminal Procedure – Section 457 CrPC – Magistrate correctly exercised powers to auction perishable goods (seized grains) and safeguard proceeds in FDR – Bank’s unilateral withdrawal defeated the purpose of judicial custody of property – Court upholds Magistrate’s direction to refund and initiate action against bank officials if not complied [Paras 11, 19–20] –

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of Trial Court directing Axis Bank to redeposit appropriated amount with interest upheld – Stay and pending applications disposed [Para 25–26].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Held: In cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. Where the prosecution failed to prove the accused and deceased were last seen together, and witnesses had only hearsay knowledge of their cohabitation, the chain is broken. [Paras 13, 56, 60-62].

Criminal Law – Motive – Significance in Circumstantial Evidence – Held: While absence of motive may not be fatal in cases of direct evidence, it is fatal in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to allege or prove any motive for the appellant to murder the deceased, with whom he was allegedly in a live-in relationship. [Paras 45-47, 63].

Criminal Law – Recovery of Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Held: The recovery of the iron lever (MO-7) and wooden logs (MO-8) was not legally proved where the independent witness (PW18) did not support the recovery mahazar and stated he was standing on the road during the alleged seizure. [Paras 57-58].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Theory – Held: Following the principle in Kali Ram v. State of H.P., if two views are possible on the evidence adduced—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. The trial court erred in overlooking missing links regarding the accused's presence and the lack of flight after the incident. [Paras 59, 62].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 63].

Succession Law – Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will dated 08.05.2003 relied upon by defendants to deny partition to sisters – Trial court held Will not proved – Held: Evidence of attesting witnesses (DW-2 and DW-3) and scribe (DW-4) consistent with execution requirements under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act – Witnesses stated Will was executed by father in sound mind and attested in presence of testator – Minor inconsistencies in recollection not fatal – Passage of eight years since execution considered – Will held duly proved [Paras 20–28, 34]

Succession Law – Presumption from Registration – Will was a registered document – Held: Though registration alone is not proof of Will, it creates presumption of genuineness – Respondents failed to raise any suspicious circumstances or prove forgery – Trial court erred in discarding Ex.B-1 solely based on witness inconsistencies [Paras 29–31]

Civil Procedure – Plaint filed alleging intestate death – Contradictory plea – Plaintiffs claimed father died intestate but produced earlier Will dated 03.06.1997 only during cross-examination – Held: Conduct of plaintiffs in concealing previous Will amounts to approaching court with unclean hands – Adds credibility to appellants’ case [Para 32]

Appeal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate testimony of attesting witnesses and wrongly concluded that Will was not proved – High Court found compliance with legal requirements and reversed preliminary decree [Paras 33–35]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court in O.S. No. 149 of 2008 set aside – Will dated 08.05.2003 held to be proved in accordance with law – No order as to costs.