Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Obstructionist Claim – Fabricated Ownership Documents – Application Dismissed – The Applicant, son of the original judgment debtor, filed an obstructionist notice in an execution proceeding based on a sale deed dated 26.11.1990 – Both Trial and Appellate Courts found the sale deed to be unregistered, unstamped, and supported by inconsistent and manipulated records – Held: The Applicant failed to establish any independent right or title, and the Courts rightly dismissed the obstructionist application [Paras 14-18, 25].

Professional Misconduct – Role of Advocate – Bar Council Rules – Enquiry Ordered – Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle sought adjournment after arguments were concluded and judgment was to be passed – Despite being aware of proceedings, he attempted to delay the matter by filing vakalatnama at a late stage – Held: Conduct was prima facie misconduct, violating Bar Council rules – Directed: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate enquiry [Paras 3-10].

Doctrine of Clean Hands – Abuse of Process – Fabricated Pleadings – Dismissal Justified – The Applicant suppressed material facts, relied on contradictory sale deeds, and attempted to delay proceedings – Held: Courts are not to be misused to perpetuate falsehoods – Petitioner did not approach with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 20-22].

Eviction Decree – Delay in Execution – Obstructionist Proceedings – Court Receiver Appointed – Despite decree passed in 2016, execution was delayed for 9 years due to obstructionist proceedings filed by son of judgment debtor – Held: Obstructionist proceedings based on fraudulent documents were abuse of process – Receiver appointed to take immediate possession and hand over to decree-holder [Paras 22-25].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Intention vs. Nature of Injuries – Conviction Upheld – Multiple injured sustained firearm and incised wounds on vital parts; even if injuries not “sufficient in ordinary course of nature” to cause death, intention of assailants decisive – Courts relied on SC precedents clarifying that minor or non-fatal injuries do not exclude Section 307 – Conviction affirmed [Paras 32-36].

Self-Defence – Injuries to Deceased Accused Explained – Evidence showed deceased Lallan Singh fired first, causing firearm injuries; when he attempted to reload, prosecution witnesses disarmed and assaulted him, causing fatal injuries – Held: Prosecution explained injuries to accused; appellants were aggressors – Plea of self-defence rejected [Paras 37-40].

Witness Credibility – Injured Witness Testimony – PW2 (injured) found reliable despite delay in recording statement; corroborated by medical evidence – PW1 and PW3 also consistent – Minor inability to assign specific roles in group assault not fatal – Testimonies accepted [Paras 41-45].

Sentencing – Leniency by Trial Court – Ten Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment – Sentence Upheld – Though Section 307 permits life imprisonment, trial court awarded 10 years; considering gravity of crime, assault on six victims with lethal weapons, sentence held appropriate despite passage of 40 years and old age of surviving appellants – Appeal dismissed [Paras 46-51].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence of surviving appellants under Sections 307/149, 147, 148 IPC upheld; appellants on bail directed to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence [Paras 51-53].

Criminal Law - Murder – Ocular Evidence – Medical Corroboration – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for murdering the deceased by inflicting multiple knife blows – The conviction was challenged on the ground of false implication and contradictions in witness testimony – Held: Testimonies of three eyewitnesses, who were family members of the deceased, were consistent with medical evidence – Recovery of blood-stained knife corroborated prosecution’s version – Trial court’s reliance on their statements was justified despite minor inconsistencies – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-16].

Benefit of Doubt – Co-accused Acquitted – No Impact on Main Accused – The co-accused Bhim Singh was not named in FIR but added in testimony later – Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to him and acquitted – Held: Mere acquittal of co-accused due to doubt does not vitiate the case against appellant when sufficient evidence exists against him – Prosecution version against main accused Vinod Kumar remained intact [Paras 10, 14-15].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Interference Not Warranted – The court found no infirmity in the trial court’s findings – All essential elements of murder proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal against conviction dismissed – Directions issued for arrest and recovery of remaining sentence [Paras 16-17].
 

Banking Law – Fraudulent Withdrawal – Liability of Bank – Plaintiff firm’s Fixed Deposits of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs prematurely discharged within days of opening – Amounts fraudulently transferred to a current account falsely opened in plaintiff’s name by impersonation – Original FD receipts recovered from Bank custody – Trial Court decreed Rs. 39,67,922/- with interest and costs – Defendant Bank’s appeal dismissed – Held: Acts were committed in regular course of banking business by Branch Manager, thus Bank vicariously liable – Plaintiff not required to implead Branch Manager personally – Service rules of Bank do not bind customers – Suit for damages lies against the Bank [Paras 1, 18–20, 27, 31–36, 38].

Evidence Act – Handwriting Comparison – Trial Court compared signatures of Branch Manager across documents and found similarity – Challenge by Bank rejected – Held: Section 73 empowers court to compare handwriting on admitted documents – Court is the ‘expert of experts’ – No need to refer to handwriting expert in such case – No legal infirmity in Trial Judge’s approach [Paras 22–26].

Fraud – Standard of Proof in Civil Cases – Bank argued fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Rejected – Held: In civil proceedings, standard is ‘preponderance of probabilities’ – Evidence indicated gross negligence and collusion by Bank employees – Even if fraud not established beyond doubt, Bank’s conduct went beyond negligence and into realm of fraud [Paras 27, 30–34].

Vicarious Liability – Acts within Course of Employment – Branch Manager acted within scope of authority and regular banking functions – Held: Bank liable for fraud/acts of negligence committed by its officer during official duties – Reaffirmed that recourse against employee lies with Bank, not with customer – Citing Smt. Shyama Devi v. SBI inapplicable where act took place within bank premises and regular course [Paras 20, 34–35, 37–38].

Procedural Law – Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Bank argued Branch Manager was necessary party – Rejected – Held: Dispute is between customer and Bank – Branch Manager acted as agent of Bank – No relief claimed against Manager personally – Suit maintainable against Bank alone [Paras 11, 36].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court found no error in Trial Court’s fact-finding or legal conclusions – Affirmed decree with minor modifications regarding disbursement of decretal amount and additional interest – Held: No ground for interference where judgment is well-reasoned and lawful [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment and decree upheld – Bank directed to pay balance interest within 90 days failing which additional interest at 8% p.a. on such balance interest will apply – Bank Guarantee to be encashed and proceeds handed to plaintiff [Paras 41–44].

Service Law - Transfer – Equivalence of Post – Non-Cadre Transfer Held Illegal – Appellant transferred from post of Chief Medical & Health Officer (CM&HO), a cadre post, to Deputy Controller, which is not included in the amended cadre list of 2012 – Held: Transfer constitutes deputation to a non-cadre post without statutory backing – Reliance on outdated rules misled Single Judge – Transfer order quashed [Paras 15–18, 22].

Deputation – Consent Requirement – Transfer Beyond Cadre Requires Consent – Appellant’s posting to Deputy Controller post amounts to deputation – Held: Deputation necessitates voluntary consent, which was not obtained – Such transfer is invalid in absence of employee’s consent [Paras 19–21].

Stigma in Transfer – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Complaints Largely Closed or Found Motivated – Transfer said to be based on administrative grounds pending inquiries – Held: No credible administrative exigency made out – Transfer found to be indirectly punitive in nature [Paras 4–5, 14].

Judicial Review – Interference in Exceptional Cases – Transfer Impacts Career Prospects – Held: Although courts normally do not interfere in transfer matters, interference justified where service rights are affected and post transferred to is of lower rank and non-cadre – High Court intervention warranted [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Transfer Order Set Aside – Special appeal allowed, impugned transfer order and learned Single Judge’s decision set aside – Appellant directed to be reinstated as CM&HO, Udaipur with consequential pecuniary benefits [Paras 26–27].
 

Criminal L:aw – Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Director’s Vicarious Liability – Section 141 N.I. Act – Complaint Quashed – Petitioner was arrayed as an accused being one of the directors of the company – Allegations in the complaint only made general averments against the petitioner, whereas specific role and responsibility of managing day-to-day affairs attributed only to the signatory and managing director – Held: Mere designation as director not sufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 – Quashing of complaint proper [Paras 6-10]. 
 
Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Absence of Specific Averments – Permissible – Complaint did not contain specific role or responsibility of the petitioner in conduct of business of the company – Petitioner neither signatory to the cheque nor shown as handling financial operations – Held: In view of settled legal principles, permitting trial against petitioner would amount to abuse of process – Complaint quashed qua petitioner [Paras 7-11]. 
 
Judicial Precedent – Reliance on Binding Authority – Vicarious Liability Principles – Applied – Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in National Small Industries Corporation v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, Susela Padmavathy Amma v. Bharti Airtel Ltd., and Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. – Reiterated that specific and clear averments against directors are a sine qua non for fastening vicarious liability – General allegations insufficient [Paras 7-10]. 
 
Decision – Quashing Allowed – Criminal Complaint No. 8437 of 2016 pending before CJM, Mehsana quashed qua petitioner – Proceedings against other accused to continue – Trial to be concluded within six months [Para 11]. 
 

Insurance Law - Insurance Coverage – Interpretation of Contract – Security Guard Not Covered – Appeal Allowed – The deceased was working as a security guard in a transport company and died in an accident during the course of employment – The insurance policy obtained by the employer listed coverage for cleaners and supervisors, but not for security personnel – Held: Security Guard did not fall within the specified categories in the policy and hence the insurer is not liable [Paras 9-11, 34].

Employee’s Compensation – Pay and Recovery – Not Applicable to Contractual Policies – Request Rejected – The claimants argued for applying the 'pay and recovery' principle despite insurer not being liable under the contract – Held: The doctrine of pay and recovery, though applicable in statutory motor vehicle insurance, cannot be extended to contractual policies under the Employees’ Compensation Act – Employer alone liable [Paras 12-14].

Construction of Insurance Contracts – Strict Interpretation Required – Security Personnel Not Implied – The policy was interpreted strictly according to its terms – Held: As the policy did not expressly include security guards, they cannot be presumed covered – Broader interpretation rejected as being contrary to contract law [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Insurer Exonerated – The insurer’s liability under the impugned award was set aside – The employer alone was held liable to pay compensation with interest and penalty – Insurer entitled to refund of deposited amount after 8 weeks [Paras 8, 11, 14].

Rent Law - Eviction – Bonafide Requirement – Section 11(3) of Kerala Rent Control Act – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Rent Control Courts wrongly placed burden on landlord – Held: The burden of proof to establish existence of alternate vacant premises lies on the tenant, not landlord – Landlord need not plead or prove non-availability of other premises – Orders set aside and eviction granted [Paras 4-6, 9].

Tenant's Pleadings – Requirement to Specify Vacant Premises – First Proviso to Section 11(3) – Not Satisfied – The tenant vaguely stated availability of other rooms but failed to identify or prove any specific vacant building in landlord's possession – Held: Failure to discharge burden under first proviso to Section 11(3) disqualifies tenant from opposing eviction – Eviction allowed [Paras 5-6].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Misdirection in Applying Law – Both courts below misdirected themselves by imposing burden on landlord – Held: Interference under Section 20 of the Act justified due to legal error and misapplication of precedents [Paras 4, 9].

Decision – Eviction Decreed – Six Months’ Time Granted to Vacate – High Court reversed concurrent findings and allowed eviction – Tenant granted six months’ time to vacate subject to filing affidavit and clearing rent arrears – Conditions imposed for continued occupation during interim period [Para 10].

Life Imprisonment – No Automatic End at 20 Years – Remission Must Be by Government – Petition Dismissed - The Court clarified that life imprisonment means incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s natural life – Rule 320(A) and Section 57 IPC cannot reduce the sentence to a fixed term – Remission requires specific order under Section 432 CrPC – No indefeasible right arises without such remission [Paras 17-23, 32-33].

Remission – Rule 320 Prison Rules Not Sufficient – Requires CrPC Compliance – Policy of 2018 Not Applicable - Remission under Rule 320 cannot operate autonomously to secure release – Government must exercise power under Section 432 with procedural checks – G.O.Ms.No.8 bars remission for death convicts whose sentence was commuted and those convicted of offences against minors – Petitioner’s father falls under both categories [Paras 24-26, 34-36].

Applicability of Remission Policy – Law at Time of Commutation Applicable – Not at Sentencing – Clarified - Court rejected argument that remission policy applicable at time of conviction (1995) should govern consideration – Held: Relevant date is the commutation of sentence (1998) when remission became relevant [Paras 35-36].

Parole – Must Be Considered Fairly – No Absolute Bar – Case Referred Back - Though past parole requests were rejected citing threat and staff shortage, Court found no incident occurred during four prior paroles – Directed respondents to consider parole on par with similarly situated prisoners per Asfaq guidelines [Paras 37-40].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Liberty to Apply for Remission under Section 432 – Parole to Be Considered - Writ petition dismissed but liberty granted to file application under Section 432 CrPC – State to assess eligibility as per law and prevailing policy – Any parole application to be judged in light of reformative jurisprudence and fairness [Paras 41-42]