Motor Vehicles Act – First Appeal under Section 173 – Limited Scope of Interference – Insurer confined challenge only to findings on negligence – No challenge to quantum of compensation – High Court reiterates that findings of fact recorded by Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence [Paras 8–9].

Negligence – Motor Accident – Alleged Contradictions in Testimony – Victim suffered 100% permanent disability – Minor inconsistency as to whether impact was from front or rear – Held: Such contradiction does not shake foundation of case – FIR, charge-sheet and police papers corroborated version of claimant – Tribunal rightly held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle [Paras 6, 9–10].

Motor Accident Claims – Nature of Proceedings – Summary in Character – Tribunal not bound by strict rules of pleadings or proof – Determination to be based on “just compensation” and preponderance of probability – Victims should not be denied compensation due to minor doubts or obscurities – Holistic approach of Tribunal approved [Para 9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Writ/Appeal Jurisdiction – Reliance on Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan – Error of fact, however grave, not a ground for interference – Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence cannot be re-examined in appellate jurisdiction – Findings based on evidence immune from challenge [Para 9].

Costs – Frivolous Appeal by Insurer – Appeal dismissed – Litigation cost of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed on insurer payable to victim in addition to decretal amount – Withdrawal of deposited amount permitted [Para 11].

Interim Applications – Stay – No substantial question of law involved – Prayer for stay declined – Interim Applications dismissed as infructuous [Paras 12–13].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and award dated 04.03.2025 upheld – Costs imposed on Insurance Company – Interim Applications disposed of.

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Religion – Article 25(1), 19(1)(a), 29(1), Constitution of India – Writ Petitions Maintainable – The High Court held that writ petitions seeking enforcement of a religious practice in protection of fundamental rights, including freedom to profess and practice religion (Article 25(1)), freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)), and the right to conserve culture (Article 29(1)), deserve to be entertained – The Court emphasized that restrictions on worship citing public order must be reasonable and not a cover to curtail rights, especially when authorities consistently ignore pleas for years – The Court found that the State's apprehension of public disturbance was an "imaginary ghost" and an exposure of their incapacity to maintain law and order or hesitation to foster harmony – The Court concluded that the alternate remedy under the HR & CE Act was not efficacious given the State's pre-determined stance and the history of litigation – The writ petitions were held not to be barred by res judicata as the specific relief sought (lighting Deepam at Deepathoon) was not finally determined in earlier litigations – The Court affirmed the right of worshippers to seek enforcement of religious practices through writ jurisdiction – [Paras 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 140(a), 140(b), 158(d), 159(i), 160(j)].

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Customary Practices – Section 28, 63(e) – Judicial Review of Custom – The Court held that the HR & CE Department, as custodian of customary rights under Section 28, and the Joint Commissioner, empowered to inquire into usage under Section 63(e), had failed to act neutrally – The Court found that the Devasthanam and Government had "pre-closed their mind" and were not inclined to choose a suitable place for lighting the lamp, making recourse to Section 63(e) a "farce exercise" – The Court rejected the argument that courts cannot dictate customs, asserting that judicial review can ascertain prevailing customs when executive orders are challenged – The Court found no material to substantiate that "Agamasastra" prohibits lighting the Mahadeepam at any place other than the Uchipillaiyar Temple – The Court noted that the present place of lighting (Uchipillaiyar Temple) is not the "Uchi" (top of the hill) nor does it have a Pillaiyar idol, contrary to the Devasthanam's claims – The Court concluded that the Devasthanam and Government's contention that the present place aligns with Agamasastra is based on "hearsay statements" and lacks textual support – [Paras 68, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 88, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 110(v)(b), 110(vi)(a), 111(vi)(b), 116, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140(c)].

Property Law – Temple Property – O.S.No.04 of 1920 (Privy Council Confirmation) – Deepathoon Ownership – The Court reiterated that the Civil Court decree in O.S.No.04 of 1920, confirmed by the Privy Council, declared the Thiruparankundram hill (excluding specific areas like the Dharga and flagstaff) as the property of the Devasthanam – The stone pillar, identified as "Deepathoon," is located on a different rock at a lower summit, within the Devasthanam's property, and not within the Dharga area – The Court found that the pillar's distinct carved features and design differentiate it from a mere survey stone, rejecting claims by some appellants that it was a British survey mark or a Jain lamp post – The Court noted that the Devasthanam authorities had screened the pillar with cloth to prevent devotees from lighting lamps, which was seen as proof of the Temple's ownership and control over it – The Court rejected the Waqf Board's "mischievous submission" claiming ownership of the Deepathoon, especially since the Dharga representatives themselves had not claimed it – [Paras 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140(e), 158(e), 159(g)].

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 – Protected Monuments – Rule 8(g) – Animal Sacrifice Prohibition – The Court noted that the Thiruparankundram Hill, covering 172.2 acres, is a protected monument under notifications from 1908 and 2023 – Rule 8(g) of the 1959 Rules prohibits bringing any animal for purposes other than monument maintenance, and Rule 8(c) prohibits cooking or consuming food except where specifically permitted – Therefore, there is a statutory bar against traditional animal sacrifice on the hill – The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is mandated to impose conditions to preserve monuments – [Paras 92, 95, 96, 98, 109(v)(a), 119, 120, 140, 141(1)].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Res Judicata – The Court found that earlier judgments, including W.P.No.18884 of 1994, provided temporary solutions and left open the issue of lighting Deepam at an alternate place, thus not constituting res judicata for the present petitions – The Court emphasized that the principle of res judicata in public interest litigation is not a technical bar when matters of grave public importance are considered – The Court criticized the Single Judge for exceeding jurisdiction by inventing a new custom and for passing judgment in haste without affording fair opportunity to all stakeholders – [Paras 68, 76, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 94(b), 96(f), 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 131, 138, 140(a)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Devasthanam must light the lamp at the Deepathoon, in addition to existing prohibitions and restrictions under the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Acts and Rules – ASI shall impose appropriate and necessary conditions to preserve the monuments – The Devasthanam team, in consultation with ASI and Police, shall light the lamp on Karthigaideepam festival day, with no public allowed to accompany the team – The District Collector shall co-ordinate and supervise the event – [Paras 141(1), 141(2)].

Criminal Law – Abortion – Section 312 IPC – Summoning Order Quashed – Petitioner summoned for offence under Section 312 IPC for terminating 14-week pregnancy – Termination conducted in a registered medical facility under supervision within the permissible 20-week limit under the MTP Act – Medical records stated reason as marital discord – Court held that abortion under medical advice in such circumstances does not attract criminal liability – Petitioner had no intention to cause miscarriage unlawfully – Offence under Section 312 IPC not made out [Paras 21–25, 38–41, 61–64]

Constitutional Law – Reproductive Autonomy – Right to Privacy and Bodily Integrity – Article 21 – Reiterated that a woman’s right to reproductive choice is a dimension of her personal liberty under Article 21 – Cited decisions in Suchita Srivastava, K.S. Puttaswamy, and X v. Principal Secretary affirming that the decision to continue or terminate pregnancy lies solely with the woman – Mental well-being, especially in cases of marital discord, is a valid legal ground for abortion [Paras 30–36, 49–50]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act – Interpretation of “Mental Health” and “Marital Discord” – Rule 3-B and Section 3(3) – Court held that “mental health” includes stress arising from marital discord – Emphasised that the MTP Act and Rules must be interpreted purposively to support access to safe and legal abortion – Rule 3-B applies to changes in material circumstances including emotional distress due to deteriorating marital relationships, even in the absence of formal separation [Paras 42–48, 53–58]

Abuse of Process – Summoning Without Prima Facie Case – Revisional Court failed to appreciate that medical termination of pregnancy under lawful circumstances cannot be treated as an offence – No prima facie evidence of criminal intent or unlawful action by the Petitioner – Summoning order under Section 312 IPC liable to be set aside as abuse of process and contrary to established constitutional and statutory protections [Paras 15–20, 65–67]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order summoning the Petitioner under Section 312 IPC is set aside – Petitioner discharged from all criminal proceedings

Civil Writ - Fair Price Shop – Misappropriation of Food Grains – Scope of Revision under Clause 24 – Respondent No.5 was found guilty by District Supply Officer (DSO) of misappropriating wheat (22.6 quintals), rice (11.36 quintals), and pulses, and violating other regulatory requirements – DSO passed order cancelling authorization and forfeiting security deposit – Revision before Deputy Commissioner dismissed, confirming findings of irregularity – Second revision allowed by Hon’ble Minister without recording finding on legality or propriety – Held: Minister exceeded revisional jurisdiction under Clause 24(1) by setting aside findings without examining their correctness – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 3–5, 13–16]

Consumer Rights – Locus of Complainants – Preliminary objection raised that original complainants (ration cardholders) have no locus to challenge Minister’s order – Rejected – Held: Under Distribution Order, 1975, complainants have standing to challenge revisional orders unlike under Licensing Order, 1979 – Judgment in Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre followed – Supreme Court ruling in Vishvas not applicable as it related to Licensing Order [Paras 6–10]

Revisional Powers – Jurisdictional Error – Hon’ble Minister ordered fresh enquiry and reinstatement of authorization based on general statements from cardholders and respondent’s long-standing service – Held: Revisional authority must record findings on legality, propriety, or irregularity of prior orders – Failure to do so renders order unsustainable and beyond jurisdiction [Paras 14–16]

Subsequent Events – Fresh Enquiry – Respondent No.5 relied on post-order enquiry showing no current complaints – Held: Subsequent developments irrelevant where earlier findings of misappropriation were unaddressed by revisional authority – Fresh material not part of record and cannot justify flawed revisional order [Para 12]

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Order dated 19/07/2021 passed by Hon’ble Minister quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to Hon’ble Minister to decide revision afresh after recording findings on allegations of misappropriation – Respondent No.5 to continue operating fair price shop unless otherwise barred – Revision to be decided preferably before 31/05/2026 [Para 17]

Banking Law – Interest Equalisation Scheme – Scope and Applicability – Plaintiff, an MSME manufacturer-exporter, was granted 5% interest subvention in September 2021 under the IE Scheme valid at the time – Defendant Bank unilaterally debited Rs. 3.45 crores from plaintiff’s account in June 2022 relying on RBI Circular of 8 March 2022 reducing subvention to 3% – Held: Clause 2(e) of the IE Scheme mandated full and upfront passing of subvention benefit based on date of disbursement – Subsequent circulars could not be applied retrospectively – Bank’s recovery illegal [Paras 1, 7-10, 28, 35, 39, 46, 59-61]

Administrative Law – Interpretation of Circulars – RBI and DGFT Clarifications – DGFT clarification dated 8 July 2022 stating benefit of 5% could only be passed on up to 30 September 2021 was inconsistent with the language of IE Scheme – Held: Plaintiff’s entitlement crystallised on date of disbursement – Later clarifications and circulars could not override vested rights [Paras 36-46, 58-59]

Banking Practice – Reimbursement Claim Negligence – Defendant Bank failed to timely and fully claim reimbursement of 5% subvention from RBI – No evidence that RBI rejected any claim – Held: Plaintiff cannot be penalised for bank’s omission – Recovery from plaintiff unsustainable [Paras 20, 51-56]

Contract Law – Exporter Undertakings – Plaintiff had agreed to refund interest equalisation benefit in case of rejection of claim by RBI – Held: Since no such rejection occurred, clause could not be invoked – Defendant’s reliance on undertaking misplaced [Paras 55-56]

Decision: Suit decreed – Defendant directed to refund Rs. 3,45,37,097/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from 22 June 2022 till actual realisation – Plaintiff also awarded costs [Paras 60-61]

Civil Law – Withdrawal of Suit – Plaintiff’s Right to Abandon – Dominus Litis – Plaintiffs, having settled with Defendant No. 5, sought to abandon the suit against him and delete Plot No. 73 from the suit – Trial Court rejected the application citing pendency of counter-claim by other defendants – Held: Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, plaintiffs have absolute right to unconditionally withdraw suit or part thereof – Court cannot compel plaintiff to continue suit – Rejection of amendment to delete co-defendant and suit plot unsustainable [Paras 14–21, 41].

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Maintainability Against Co-Defendant – Abuse of Process – Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 sought to raise a counter-claim against Defendant No. 5 to recover Rs.1.61 crores under a 2008 agreement – Added declaratory relief against plaintiffs to sustain counter-claim – Held: Under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, counter-claim must be against plaintiff – Mere inclusion of a relief against plaintiff is insufficient if it is a subterfuge to target a co-defendant – Counter-claim primarily against D5 not maintainable [Paras 25–40].

Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment to Written Statement with Counter-Claim – Liberal Standards Do Not Apply Where Claim Is Legally Impermissible – Trial Court erred in allowing amendment when main intent was to set up a legally barred counter-claim against co-defendant – Liberal standard for amendment of written statement cannot justify permitting unlawful claims [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Common order of Trial Court set aside – Amendment of plaint to delete Defendant No. 5 and suit plot allowed – Amendment of written statement and counter-claim by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 rejected – Rule made absolute [Para 42].

Criminal Law – Human Trafficking – Cybercrime – Job fraud involving trafficking of Indian citizens to Myanmar where they were held as cyber slaves – Applicants allegedly acted as intermediaries facilitating communication between job seekers and foreign agents in return for commission – Held: Applicants were minor players, unaware of the full consequences – Bail granted post chargesheet [Paras 6(i)–6(vi), 7]

Bail – Successive Bail Application – Post-Chargesheet – Section 483 BNSS – Factors considered – Applicants allegedly acted in good faith without knowledge of the trafficking consequences – Received limited commission – No prior criminal antecedents – Held: Continued detention post-chargesheet would amount to pre-trial punishment – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 6(vii), 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – Sanjay Chandra v. CBI applied – Bail not to be denied as punitive measure where trial is likely to take time and accused’s role is limited – Observations in bail order not to influence trial on merits [Paras 6(vii), 11]

Decision: Applications allowed – Applicants to be released on bail on furnishing bond of ₹50,000/- each with one surety of like amount – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with investigation and trial – Rule made absolute [Paras 8–12]

Civil Law  – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Bar of Suit by Special Statute – Land acquired under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Notification under Section 10 issued prior to institution of suit – Land vested absolutely in Central Government – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 26 – Trial Court erred in refusing to reject plaint – Held: Suit patently barred by law and plaint liable to be rejected [Paras 11–19].

Limitation – Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act – Challenge to sale deed – Pleading of date of knowledge instead of date of execution – Plaintiff pleaded knowledge of sale deed on 27.02.2022 – Issue of limitation becomes mixed question of law and fact – Trial Court justified in not rejecting plaint on limitation alone [Paras 9–10].

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Effect of acquisition and vesting – After issuance of notification under Section 10, title vests in Central Government free from encumbrances – Civil dispute regarding title becomes irrelevant except for determination of entitlement to compensation – Only surviving right is claim to compensation [Paras 13–15].

Jurisdiction – Tribunal under Sections 14 and 17 of Act of 1957 – Tribunal empowered to decide disputes relating to compensation and entitlement thereto – Tribunal headed by a person who is or has been qualified to be a Judge of a High Court – Tribunal competent to decide incidental questions of title to determine entitlement to compensation – Civil Court jurisdiction excluded under Section 26 [Paras 14–18].

Precedents – Divergent views – Bombay High Court view in Sandeep v. Suchita not accepted – Views of Patna High Court and Jharkhand High Court preferred – Held: Once acquisition is complete, civil suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs is not maintainable [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint rejected as barred by Section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Parties to bear own costs.

Criminal Law – Murder and Theft – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence – No eyewitnesses to the occurrence – “Last seen” theory not proved as material witnesses (P.Ws.6 to 16) turned hostile – Held: In absence of complete chain of circumstances, conviction under Sections 302 and 379 IPC unsustainable [Paras 16, 18, 20].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Stolen Property – Sole Incriminating Circumstance – Recovery of 20 goats from house of A2 nearly three months after incident – No other corroborative evidence connecting accused with murder – Held: Conviction for murder and theft cannot be based solely on recovery effected after considerable delay [Paras 10-12, 18-20].

Evidence – Presumption from Recovery – Limits – Reliance on recovery of movable property – Goats allegedly retained for three months without disposal – Conduct found unnatural and improbable – Distinguished Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. where recovery of jewellery was involved – Held: Presumption insufficient to establish guilt for offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Majority of prosecution witnesses examined to prove circumstantial links turned hostile – Prosecution failed to establish motive, last seen theory or nexus between accused and crime – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 11, 16, 20].

Offence under Section 411 IPC – Receiving Stolen Property – Partial Conviction Sustained – Recovery of stolen goats from possession of A2 proved through evidence of P.Ws.20 and 24 – Test Identification Parade of goats conducted and not challenged in cross-examination – Held: Conviction of A2 under Section 411 IPC justified and confirmed [Paras 17, 21].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal Nos.1807, 1953 and 2683 of 2018 allowed – Convictions and sentences of Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 under Sections 302 and 379 read with 34 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2021 partly allowed – Convictions of Accused No.2 under Sections 302 and 379 read with 34 IPC set aside – Acquittal recorded for those offences – Conviction and sentence under Section 411 IPC confirmed – Accused No.2 directed to be released, having already undergone sentence.