Recovery Suit – Negligence of Employee – Corporation Alleged Loss of Stocks and Excess Gunny Bags – Departmental Enquiry Established Liability – Trial Court Partly Decreed Suit – Lower Appellate Court Reversed on Ground of Limitation – In Second Appeal, High Court confined to issue of limitation [Paras 1-7, 11-15, 19].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Commencement from Date of Knowledge – Corporation acquired knowledge of excess bags in 1988 and shortage of wheat on 09.01.1989 – Suit filed on 16.07.1992 – Held barred by three-year limitation under Article 58 of Limitation Act – Plea that limitation starts from date of final determination of loss rejected [Paras 20-22].

Case Law – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Court applied ratio in Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 779, reiterating that limitation begins when cause of action first accrues or from date of knowledge – Distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” rejected – Suit beyond time barred under Section 3 of Limitation Act [Paras 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Lower Appellate Court upholding bar of limitation sustained – No infirmity or illegality found – Cross-objections and pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24-26].

Education Law - Foreign Medical Graduates – Internship Requirement – Covid-19 and Ukraine War – NMC Circulars Valid – Petitioners (FMGs from Bukovinian University) sought one-year CRMI citing physical classes and Ext. P1 NMC notice dated 19.06.2024 – Respondent Council insisted on two-year CRMI per later NMC notices dated 07.06.2024 and 09.05.2023 – Held: Petitioners admittedly had online classes during course period – NMC directed all such FMGs to undergo two/three-year CRMI – Council bound to follow – Writ dismissed [Paras 2-6, 10-15].

Certificates from Foreign Universities – Evidentiary Value – Rejected by NMC – NMC found certificates issued by medical universities abroad claiming “compensated offline classes” to be indiscriminate and unreliable – Directed that such certificates cannot be accepted – Petitioners’ reliance on compensation letters from Bukovinian University rejected [Paras 8-9, 13-14].

Internship Condition – Acceptance by Petitioners – Estoppel – Petitioners accepted provisional registration certificates issued by Kerala State Medical Council specifying two-year internship – Attempt to later challenge condition not sustainable – Petition dismissed [Para 15].

Public Interest – NMC Decision Binding – Extension of internship duration upheld as a measure to ensure competence of FMGs who missed full physical training due to Covid-19/Ukraine War – High Court cannot dilute national policy framed by statutory regulator in public interest [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners required to complete two-year CRMI as per NMC directives – No merit in challenge [Para 15].

Consumer Law - Consumer Protection Act – Defective Car – Non-deployment of Airbags – Manufacturing Defect Established – Complainant purchased Toyota Innova in March 2011 – Vehicle suffered frontal collision in August 2011, airbags did not deploy – District Forum held inherent manufacturing defect, ordered replacement/refund with compensation – State Commission and NCDRC affirmed – High Court upheld findings, noting global recall of Innovas, FIR/photos, and expert evidence – No perversity shown [Paras 4-10, 20-22].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference Limited – High Court reiterated supervisory powers extend only to correcting jurisdictional errors or perversity – Consumer fora’s findings based on appreciation of evidence cannot be reappraised – Petition dismissed [Paras 11-14, 18-19].

NCDRC Coram Objection – Single-Member Decision – Validity Upheld – Petitioner argued NCDRC order invalid as decided by non-judicial member alone – Court rejected, holding NCDRC functions as Tribunal under statute and such orders are judicially reviewable – No illegality found [Paras 12-13].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Orders of District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC upheld – Toyota directed to comply with reliefs of replacement/refund and compensation [Paras 20-24].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder and Robbery – Conviction Modified and Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted in 2002 for stabbing complainant Raj Kumar and robbing ₹9,200/- with accomplices – Trial court imposed 7 years RI under Sections 307/34 and 392/397/34 IPC – On appeal, High Court upheld conviction under Section 307 IPC, but altered conviction from 392/397 IPC to 379 IPC as prosecution failed to prove use of force “for the purpose of committing theft” – Sentence reduced to 5 years RI under Section 307/34 IPC and 6 months RI under Section 379/34 IPC, with both running concurrently and benefit of Section 428 CrPC granted [Paras 2-4, 11-17].

Attempt to Murder – Injured Witness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Injured PW-3 Raj Kumar’s testimony consistent, corroborated by medical evidence (MLC showing multiple stab wounds) – Minor contradictions immaterial – Injured witness testimony carries special evidentiary weight – Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC affirmed [Paras 8-11].

Robbery vs. Theft – Distinction Applied – Assault Not for Purpose of Theft – Though complainant was attacked and money taken, evidence showed motive was personal enmity, not theft – Absence of proof that violence was caused “in order to commit theft” under Section 390 IPC – Conviction under Section 392/397 IPC modified to Section 379/34 IPC [Paras 12-14].

Sentence – Modification Based on Passage of Time and Mitigating Circumstances – Incident occurred in 2000, trial concluded in 2002, appeal decided after 23 years – Appellant now 51 years old with dependent family – Court reduced sentence from 7 years to 5 years under Section 307 IPC and 6 months under Section 379 IPC – Directed surrender within 3 days [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld – Conviction under Sections 392/397 IPC modified to Section 379 IPC – Sentence reduced – Appeal disposed of with directions to surrender and serve modified term [Paras 15-20].

Criminal Law - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Proof Essential – Conviction Set Aside – Accused, then Secretary of Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat, was convicted for accepting ₹250 as bribe in trap proceedings – Complainant (PW2) turned hostile, denying demand and acceptance – Other witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5) spoke only to trap formalities and recovery but not to demand – Held: Proof of demand is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Mere recovery insufficient – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 5-11, 15-17, 19].

Hostile Complainant – Evidentiary Impact – Circumstantial Evidence Insufficient – Though complainant turned hostile, Court reiterated that demand may be proved by circumstantial evidence or other testimony – In present case, circumstances did not establish demand – Prosecution failed to prove foundational fact – No presumption under Section 20 could be raised [Paras 16-18].

Case Law Applied – Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330 – Demand and acceptance must be proved directly or circumstantially – Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013 – Presumption under Section 20 limited to Section 7 offences – State v. C.B. Nagaraj, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175 – Reinforced same ratio [Paras 14-18].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Bail bond cancelled – Liberty restored [Para 19].

Execution Proceedings – Obstruction by Judgment Debtor – Plea of Tenancy – Barred by Res Judicata/Estoppel – Appellant (4th defendant) claimed tenancy rights in execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC – Trial Court had earlier in O.S. No. 71/2012 held appellant was not a tenant – No appeal filed against that finding – Held: Appellant estopped from re-agitating plea – Executing court rightly dismissed obstruction petition [Paras 13-18, 26].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reiterated interference lies only if substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings on facts that appellant was not a tenant, and decree-holders entitled to possession, do not warrant interference – No substantial question of law made out [Paras 9-12, 28-29].

Tenant vs. Owner – Legal Principle – Even assuming tenancy existed, tenant cannot claim ownership rights or resist landlord’s title – Tenant cannot dictate terms to owner – Doctrine well settled – Applied against appellant [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings of courts below affirmed – Pending applications closed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 29-30].

Religious Rights – State-sponsored Hindu festival – Invitation to non-Hindu public figure upheld – No violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution – Writ Petitions dismissed.

Freedom of Religion – Participation of Non-Hindu in State-sponsored Dasara Festival – Petition challenging invitation to Muslim public figure to inaugurate Hindu festival dismissed – Held: No violation of Articles 25 and 26 as the event is organized by the State and not a religious denomination – Constitutional protections not offended [Paras 1, 5, 8–9, 15].

Constitutional Law – Articles 25 and 26 – No Fundamental Right Infringed – Petitioners failed to establish that they represented a religious denomination whose rights under Article 26(b) were infringed – Participation of respondent No.4 in inauguration does not impede any religious practice – State has right to invite any citizen irrespective of religion [Paras 5, 8–9, 11].

Religious Endowments – Applicability of Precedents – Cited Supreme Court rulings (Shirur Mutt, Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal, Venkataramana Devaru) found inapplicable – Petitioners lacked locus to claim religious injury or violation of agamic traditions – State function cannot be equated to temple administration or ritual exclusivity [Paras 10–14].

Secularism – Equality and Non-discrimination – State’s invitation to accomplished author and social activist upheld – Past precedence of non-Hindu invitees recognized – Invitation does not indicate participation in exclusive religious rites – Inclusive gesture by State does not breach constitutional or religious boundaries [Paras 4–6, 15].

Final Decision – No merit found in any of the writ petitions – No violation of constitutional or religious rights – Petitions dismissed [Para 16].

Civil Revision – Recording of Evidence at Residence – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Challenge Dismissed – Plaintiff, aged 84 years, sought recording of her evidence at home citing medical condition – Earlier similar application dismissed when health was stable – Fresh medical record showed supervised rest advised – Trial court allowed application under Order 10 CPC, appointed Local Commissioner – High Court held: Res judicata not rigidly applicable to interlocutory orders; change in circumstances justified order – Wrong provision cited immaterial when substantive power exists under CPC – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6-9, 11-12].

Res Judicata – Interlocutory Orders – Not Rigidly Applied – Earlier dismissal of application (31.05.2025) not bar to subsequent application where fresh medical record produced – Change of circumstances material for reconsideration [Para 6].

Wrong Citation of Provision – No Bar to Relief – Though application filed under Order 10 CPC, power to record evidence by commission flows from Order 18 Rules 16 & 19 and Order 26 Rule 1 CPC – Wrong mentioning of provision does not vitiate order if substantive power exists [Para 7].

Recording Evidence at Disputed Property – Not Improper – Plaintiff residing in disputed house – Mere pendency of dispute does not bar recording of evidence at that location – Local Commissioner as officer of court ensures decorum and impartiality [Para 8].

Affidavit in Chief – Already Filed – To be Tendered Before Commissioner – Plaintiff’s affidavit in examination-in-chief already on record; cross-examination to be conducted before Local Commissioner in presence of both parties – No prejudice caused to petitioner [Para 9].

Case Law – Cited Precedents Distinguished – Reliance on Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. v. Harbans Lal (2010) 8 SCC 452 and Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuv (2013) 4 SCC 97 rejected as those cases dealt with immediate recording of evidence before trial commenced – Present case involved evidence stage after framing of issues [Para 10].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial court’s order upheld – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 12-13].

Civil Law – Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - Delay in Filing Written Statement – No Exceptional Circumstance Shown – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner served with summons on 19.12.2024 but failed to file written statement within 30 days or extended period of 90 days – Right to file written statement closed on 01.04.2025 – Application for recall and condonation dismissed by trial court – High Court held: obtaining certified copies of documents in another litigation not an exceptional circumstance – Petitioner could have inspected documents instead of delaying – Delay beyond 90 days unjustified – Revision dismissed [Paras 3-7].

Res Judicata – Interlocutory Orders – Review Not Maintainable – Petitioner attempted to reopen trial court’s order dated 01.04.2025 by way of recall plea – Court held: no error apparent on record or discovery of new facts despite diligence – Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent finality of procedural orders [Para 8].

Strict Application of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Leniency Rejected – High Court rejected plea for liberal approach in condoning delay – Emphasized that post-2002 CPC amendment, strict timelines must be adhered to – Lenient view would render provision otiose and defeat purpose of expeditious trial [Para 9].

Final Decision – No infirmity in trial court’s order – Petition and connected applications dismissed – Closure of right to file written statement upheld [Paras 9-10].