Workmen’s Compensation – Liability of Insurance Company – Compensation and Interest – Deceased driver died during employment-related accident – Commissioner held both employer and insurer jointly liable for ₹8,52,160/- with 9% simple interest till award and 7% compound interest thereafter – Held: Insurer liable to pay entire compensation along with 12% interest under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act – Joint liability modified accordingly [Paras 1–4, 6–8].

Insurance Law – Scope of Liability – Penalty Exclusion – Reiterated that interest on delayed compensation forms part of insurer’s liability but penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) is not – Penalty arises from employer’s personal fault and cannot be foisted on insurer – Commissioner’s award modified to clarify insurer’s exclusive liability for compensation and interest only [Paras 7, 7.1, 8].

Precedents – Apex Court Binding – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi (1997) 8 SCC 1, Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co. (2009) 1 SCC 487, and New India Assurance Co. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya (2006) 5 SCC 192 – Held: Legal position settled that insurer covers compensation and statutory interest but not penalty – Binding precedents followed to allow appeal in part [Paras 4, 7–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order modified – Insurance company held liable to pay ₹8,47,160/- compensation with 12% interest – Remaining portion of Commissioner’s order unaltered.

Partition Suit – Final Decree Proceedings – Acceptance of Commissioner's Report – Challenge to Allotment – Road Access – Petitioners challenged the order of the Senior Civil Judge accepting the report, partition map, and allotment sheets submitted by the survey knowing Amin commissioner in final decree proceedings – Objections raised included excess allotment of 900 sq. links to the plaintiffs and inadequate road access for petitioners – Trial court conducted inquiry, examined the commissioner, and found the objections meritless – Held: The commissioner’s report was legally and properly accepted – No illegality or infirmity found in allocation – Petitioners’ claims found to be unsupported by evidence – Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed [Paras 4, 10, 11, 13, 14].

Commissioner’s Report – Legal Validity – Role of Objections – Judicial Satisfaction Required – Held: Even in absence of objection, a commissioner’s report is not automatically binding – Court must independently evaluate the report and record satisfaction after considering objections and evidence – Trial court complied with these requirements and gave detailed reasoning based on evidence – No jurisdictional error to warrant interference under Article 227 [Paras 8, 9, 12].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference in Final Decree Proceedings – Scope of interference limited to cases of perversity or gross error – Held: The acceptance of the commissioner’s report by the trial court was well-reasoned and based on proper application of legal principles – No perversity or jurisdictional overreach found – Petition under Article 227 not maintainable [Paras 7, 13, 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No merit in challenge to final decree proceedings – No interference warranted under Article 227.

Civil Law – Declaration of Ownership – Second Appeal – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of ancestral property through succession from father Swaraj – Defendants relied on sale deeds executed by sons of Swaraj during his lifetime – First Appellate Court decreed suit in favour of plaintiffs – Held: Plaintiffs not in possession of suit property at the time of suit – Mere declaratory relief without seeking possession not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Sale deeds valid to extent of vendor’s subsequent interest – Appeal allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside – Suit dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 10(f), 11]

Transfer of Property – Sale by Non-Owner – Protection under Section 43 TPA – Sons of Swaraj executed sale deeds in 1980 though property belonged to their father – Father died in 1982 – Plaintiffs (daughters) claimed succession rights – Held: Section 43 TPA not applicable as vendors only had expectancy and not an existing interest – Defendants not entitled to protection under Section 43 – Sale deeds not valid at time of execution – Subsequent acquisition of interest after Swaraj’s death did not cure initial defect – [Paras 10(d), 10(e)]

Transfer of Property – Expectancy of Heirship – Section 6(a) TPA – Sons of Swaraj had only a chance to inherit at the time of executing sale deeds – Such expectancy is not transferable under law – Sale deeds by Tarsem Lal and Naresh Kumar executed in 1980 (during father's lifetime) conveyed no valid title – Property remained with Swaraj until his death in 1982 – [Paras 10(d), 10(e)]

Declaratory Relief – Possession Not Sought – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs admitted that defendant Mool Raj was in possession of suit property and had raised construction – Suit for declaration alone without seeking possession is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Reference to Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 SC 2685; Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra, AIR 1993 SC 957; Muni Lal v. Oriental Insurance Co., AIR 1996 SC 642; Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla, (2005) 5 SCC 390 – Declaratory decree without consequential relief is not maintainable [Paras 10(f)]

Appellate Court Error – Erroneous Reliance on Local Commissioner’s Report – First Appellate Court found construction to be recent based on Local Commissioner’s report – Held: Local Commissioner unable to determine exact age of construction – Plaintiff admitted construction existed prior to suit – No injunction granted during trial against raising construction – Appellate Court erred in holding that construction occurred during suit – [Paras 7, 9(d), 10(f)]

Bona Fide Purchaser – No Protection – Defendants admitted that Swaraj was the owner of the property – Therefore, purchasers from his sons (Tarsem Lal and Naresh Kumar) cannot claim status of bona fide purchasers without notice – Section 41 of TPA not attracted – Defendants not entitled to equitable protection – [Paras 7, 10(c), 10(e)]

Limitation – No Bar for Inheritance Claim – Plaintiffs claimed inheritance through natural succession – Held: Inheritance rights not barred by limitation – Right to claim title by succession continues until validly extinguished – [Paras 10(a), 10(b)]

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment of Trial Court restored – Plaintiffs’ suit dismissed for want of relief of possession and failure to establish their claim against valid construction in possession of defendant – No costs [Paras 10(f), 11]

NDPS Act – Bail – Section 27A – Illicit Traffic – Misuse of Provision – Bail Allowed – Petitioners, one seeking anticipatory bail and the other regular bail, were arraigned under Section 27A NDPS Act based solely on recovery of heroin (5g and 21g) and INR 1000 in cash – Court found that the investigating agencies invoked Section 27A without prima facie evidence of financing illicit traffic or harboring offenders – Held: Mere possession of small amount of cash, even if seized alongside contraband, does not meet threshold under Section 27A – Drug money must be directly linked to financing of organised illicit traffic – Mechanical invocation of Section 27A to trigger rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act deprecated – Interim bail orders made absolute [Paras 2, 3, 7, 12–15, 21–22, 35, 39–41, 44–45, 50–53]

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Non-Applicability Without Evidence Under Section 27A – Court reaffirmed that before applying the twin conditions of Section 37, prosecution must first establish a prima facie case under Section 27A – Held: Absence of foundational evidence linking the recovered cash to financing illicit trafficking disentitles the prosecution from relying on Section 37 to oppose bail [Paras 11, 37–39, 52]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Legal Tender – Presumption of Lawful Possession – Burden on Prosecution – Recovered cash of INR 1000 treated as lawful possession – Held: Currency is legal tender and presumed lawful unless prosecution proves illicit derivation or nexus with drug crime – Strong suspicion cannot substitute evidence – Bail cannot be denied merely because currency was recovered along with narcotics [Paras 20, 26–30, 44–46]

Investigative Abuse – Capricious Use of Section 27A – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Court cautioned against capricious use of Section 27A by police to trigger bail embargo under Section 37 – Held: Courts must lift the veil and demand concrete evidence before endorsing such allegations – Penal provisions must be interpreted strictly and proportionately [Paras 14, 39, 51]

Decision: Bail petitions allowed – Interim orders made absolute – Invocation of Section 27A NDPS Act found unwarranted – Rigours of Section 37 held inapplicable – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Proof of Execution – Plaintiff relied on agreement dated 26.09.2006 for sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- – Defendants contended agreement was concocted and created as security for hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- – Property situated within Bengaluru city limits with guideline value exceeding Rs.23 lakhs in 2005 – Held: On preponderance of probabilities, execution of agreement of sale for meagre consideration doubtful – Trial Court erred in holding execution proved merely on basis of agreement and reply notice [Paras 14–17].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act – Burden on plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness – Mere issuance of legal notice insufficient – No evidence of financial capacity or availability of funds to pay balance consideration – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge mandatory statutory requirement – Suit for specific performance not maintainable [Paras 18, 24].

Specific Performance – Discretion of Court – Section 20 of Specific Relief Act (Pre-amendment) – Even if agreement assumed to be proved, grant of decree not automatic – Court required to consider unfair advantage, hardship, surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties – Agreement giving unfair advantage to plaintiff in light of gross undervaluation – Held: Discretion wrongly exercised by Trial Court [Paras 25–34].

Evidence – Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Certified copy of Sub-Registrar guideline value and Gazette Notification produced – Public documents relevant for just decision – Held: Additional evidence rightly admitted and considered [Para 15].

Relief – Alternative Relief – Refund of Advance – Where specific performance refused, plaintiff entitled to refund of earnest money – Defendants directed to refund Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of agreement – Equitable relief granted [Para 35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 in O.S. No. 974/2008 set aside – Suit for specific performance dismissed – Decreed for alternative relief of refund of Rs.2,50,000/- with 6% interest per annum from 26.09.2006 – Amount to be refunded within five months.

Criminal Law – Police Harassment – Herbal Hookah in Restaurant – Petitioner alleged police interference with lawful restaurant operation citing alleged sale of tobacco-laced hookah – Petitioner claimed use of only herbal substances without nicotine – Held: Police not to interfere with restaurant business unless illegal activity is found – Direction issued to petitioner to approach FSSAI for certification [Paras 1-3, 7-8]

Tobacco Control – COTPA Act – Section 4A – Hookah Bars – State amendment prohibits hookah bars – Whether petitioner’s hookah product contains tobacco or nicotine is a factual issue to be verified by competent authorities – Held: Court cannot act on mere oral claims – Matter to be decided by FSSAI and not by the Court [Paras 5-6]

Food Safety – Jurisdiction of FSSAI – Products inhaled via hookah without tobacco/nicotine fall within the definition of “food” under Section 2(za) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – FSSAI to test samples and verify composition – If product is free of tobacco/nicotine, petitioner can continue operating hookah bar [Paras 6-9]

Police Powers – Surveillance vs Harassment – Though restaurant is located near educational institutions, police can only act if illegal activities are found – General interference in routine lawful business not permitted – Police liberty preserved to act if any illegality is detected [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of – Petitioner directed to approach FSSAI with product ingredients – Police restrained from interference in lawful business unless illegality is found – Petitioner at liberty to continue business if products are certified tobacco/nicotine-free [Para 8]

Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – Sale by Karta – Plaintiffs, sons of the first defendant, challenged sale of 0.70 cents of ancestral property made by their father (first defendant) in favour of his brother (second defendant) – Property was ancestral, and plaintiffs had birthright – Held: Sale deed not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Alienation by karta not for legal necessity or benefit of estate – Such sale is voidable, not void – Trial court’s finding upheld [Paras 14–20, 23(a)–(b)].

Property Law – Validity of Sale – Ancestral Property – Settlement deed in favour of first defendant does not convert ancestral property into self-acquisition – Nomenclature of document irrelevant – Legal character of property remains unchanged – Coparceners cannot be divested of birthright through unilateral settlement by father [Paras 15–16].

Burden of Proof – Legal Necessity – Under Mitakshara law, burden lies on purchaser (second defendant) to prove sale by karta was for legal necessity – Mere indebtedness or personal hardship of the karta not sufficient – Held: Second defendant failed to discharge burden – Plaintiffs entitled to protection of their undivided share [Para 17].

Partition – Sale During Minority – Plaintiffs, being minors at the time of sale, entitled to challenge the alienation – Since sale not shown to be for necessity or benefit of family, transaction is not binding on their share – However, second defendant entitled to seek equitable allotment in final decree from vendor’s (first defendant’s) share [Paras 19–21].

Equity – Final Decree Proceedings – Trial court’s direction to allot “0.70 share” to second defendant modified – Held: Precise metes and bounds to be fixed during final decree based on value and soil condition – Sale deed to be honoured only to the extent of first defendant’s share [Paras 21–22, 23(c)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification – Sale deed dated 10.10.2005 held valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Second defendant entitled to equitable allotment from first defendant’s share in final decree – No order as to costs [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304A IPC – Death by Alleged Stone Pelting – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for causing death through rash and negligent act – On appeal, High Court finds that key witnesses including P.W.3 (complainant), P.W.4 and P.W.6 (injured) admitted inability to identify assailants due to darkness – No torchlight allegedly used by assailants was seized – Medical opinion consistent with accidental fall on hard surface – Held: Identity of accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 29–39, 45–49, 60–62]

Identification – Evidence in Nighttime Assault – Victim and witnesses admitted inability to identify assailants due to darkness – Torchlight said to have been used not recovered – Independent witnesses (P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11) did not implicate appellant – Absence of specific identification renders conviction unsafe [Paras 30–38, 45–58]

Medical Evidence – Contradiction with Ocular Evidence – Doctors (P.W.1 and P.W.2) opined injuries could result from fall on hard or stony surface – No external injuries consistent with targeted stone assault established – Injury reports vague and lacked detail – Held: Medical evidence does not support prosecution narrative of deliberate assault [Paras 41–44, 60–61]

Criminal Procedure – Benefit of Doubt – When key prosecution witnesses fail to identify accused, medical evidence is inconclusive, and investigation lacks corroborative seizure – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 62–64]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.04.1991 passed in Sessions Case No. 17/89 set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds to be discharged if not wanted in any other case – Appellant to furnish bonds under Section 437A CrPC for six months.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Appeal against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Financial Capacity and Rebuttal of Presumption – Complainant alleged advancing Rs. 10 Lakhs cash loan – Trial Court acquitted accused citing lack of evidence for transaction and probable defence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: Complainant failed to prove financial capacity or purpose of loan – Defence successfully rebutted presumption by establishing the cheque was likely a security for husband’s transaction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11].

Evidence – Financial Capacity – Lack of Documentation – Complainant, a financier, claimed to have lent Rs. 10 Lakhs in cash but failed to produce Income Tax records or mention the purpose of the loan – High Court affirmed that advancing such a high amount without documentation renders the initial case of the complainant "wobbly" even before presumption is raised [Paras 5, 9].

Cheque – Material Alterations and Execution – Signature on the cheque was in different ink compared to other entries – Complainant failed to depose that the cheque was filled by the accused in his presence – Circumstances supported the defence version that a blank cheque was issued as security rather than for the alleged debt [Para 10].

Presumption and Rebuttal – Standard of Proof – Accused examined herself (D.W.2) and produced documents relating to connected insolvency proceedings and other transactions involving her husband – Court held that the accused rebutted the statutory presumption to the level of preponderance of probability – Benefit of doubt rightly granted by Trial Court [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.