Bail – Murder – Organised Crime – Rejection – Petitioners (Accused Nos.6 and 7) sought bail in case involving murder committed by organised crime syndicate under KCOCA – Alleged direct participation in assault on deceased with deadly weapons – Held: Serious overt acts attributed, offence punishable with death or life imprisonment – Bail not justified [Paras 10–15].

Criminal Law – Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act – Applicability – Prosecution alleged formation of organised crime syndicate by Accused No.3 and participation of petitioners with intent to earn money through illegal means – Confessional statements recorded before Deputy Commissioner of Police admissible under Section 19 KCOCA – Prima facie material sufficient to invoke KCOCA [Paras 11–12].

Evidence – Eye Witness – Credibility at Bail Stage – CW.2, eye witness, named petitioners in statement under Section 161 CrPC and reiterated same under Section 164 CrPC – Witness saw petitioners assault deceased with machete and knife on vital parts – Held: At bail stage, Court cannot discard consistent eyewitness account supported by medical evidence [Paras 3, 8, 14].

Medical Evidence – Multiple Injuries – Gravity of Offence – Post-mortem report revealed 31 external injuries – Cause of death due to multiple injuries – Held: Nature and number of injuries demonstrate brutal assault, militating against grant of bail [Paras 8, 14].

Parity – Bail to Co-accused – Distinction – Petitioners relied on bail granted to Accused No.10 – Court held Accused No.10 was not an assailant and did not actively participate – Held: Parity not applicable where role of petitioners is materially different [Paras 3, 13].

Bail Jurisprudence – “Bail is Rule” – Limitation – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision reiterating bail as rule – Held: Principle not absolute – In cases involving organised crime, direct participation, threat to witnesses and severe punishment, bail can be denied despite youth or lack of antecedents [Paras 4–5, 14–15].

Threat to Witnesses – Consideration – Prosecution apprehended threat to CW.2 and other witnesses if petitioners released on bail – Held: Likelihood of intimidation a relevant factor in denying bail [Paras 8, 14].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to bail in Spl.C.C. No. 2055 of 2024 arising out of Crime No. 353 of 2024 – Bail refused considering gravity of offence, prima facie evidence and threat to witnesses.

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Wage Revision – Onward Revision of Wages and Allowances – Tribunal Award Set Aside – Tribunal answered reference in favour of workmen on revision of wages and additional dearness allowance – High Court held that Tribunal failed to analyze oral and documentary evidence and jumped to conclusions by merely reproducing Supreme Court precedents – Award held unsustainable [Paras 9–10, 17, 23–25].

Industrial Adjudication – Non-Consideration of Material Evidence – Perversity – Learned Tribunal did not discuss comparative wage data, settlement during pendency of reference, or effect of majority settlement with workmen – Figures regarding profits and additional burden not supported by specific evidence – Held: Non-consideration of relevant material vitiates award [Paras 21–22, 27, 29].

Wage Fixation – Industry-cum-Region Principle – Application – Tribunal relied on Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. and Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd. without applying principles to facts of Theruballi Unit specifically – Annual Reports relied upon related to multiple units and not exclusively to concerned unit – Held: Mechanical application of precedents impermissible [Paras 15, 22–24].

Dearness Allowance – All India Consumer Price Index – Additional DA – Tribunal directed payment without determining entitlement details or basis of computation – Failure to state mode and quantum of benefit rendered findings incomplete – Award liable to be interfered with [Paras 24–25].

Judicial Review – Article 227 – Scope – High Court reiterated that interference is justified where Tribunal fails to exercise jurisdiction, ignores material evidence or records findings based on no evidence – Present case found fit for interference and remand [Paras 27–29].

Settlement – Effect on Reference – During pendency of dispute, majority of workmen entered into settlement with management and opted out of adjudication – Tribunal referred to settlement but failed to examine its effect in light of law laid down in TELCO case – Held: Tribunal erred in ignoring relevant development [Paras 21, 23].

Remand – Fresh Adjudication – Considering passage of time and scope for additional evidence, High Court refrained from deciding merits – Matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh consideration with liberty to parties to adduce further evidence [Paras 28–30].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Award dated 10.10.2013 in Industrial Dispute Case No.6 of 2006 set aside – Matter remitted to Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication – Parties directed to appear before Tribunal on 06.01.2026 – No order as to costs.

Motor Accident Compensation – Death of Minor Child – Enhancement of Compensation – Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.30,000 per annum and awarded lump sum compensation – High Court held that a deceased minor cannot be equated with a non-earning person merely due to absence of gainful employment – Minimum wages of skilled workman applicable – Income reassessed at Rs.10,000 per month – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 1, 9–10, 14].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court pronouncement holding that minimum wages of skilled workman must be adopted for deceased minor – Tribunal committed manifest error in adopting arbitrary notional income – Corrected by High Court [Paras 9–10].

Future Prospects – Minor Deceased – Addition Mandatory – Considering age of deceased (15 years), future prospects @ 40% added in terms of Pranay Sethi – Tribunal erred in not granting any amount under this head – Rectified in appeal [Paras 11, 14].

Personal and Living Expenses – Deduction – Minor Victim – Deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenditure applicable – Tribunal erred in not making any deduction – Corrected in accordance with Sarla Verma principles [Paras 12, 14].

Multiplier – Selection – Age of Deceased – Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 15 – Correct multiplier for age group of 15 years held to be 18 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 13–14].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Estate – Funeral Expenses – Consortium – Tribunal failed to grant loss of estate and awarded meagre amounts under funeral expenses and consortium – High Court awarded amounts as per Pranay Sethi with applicable escalation – Filial consortium awarded to both parents [Paras 13–14].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Rate of Interest – In view of Supreme Court judgments, interest on enhanced compensation awarded @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within stipulated time [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.03.2017 modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.16,45,100/- – Enhanced amount of Rs.11,45,100/- awarded with interest @ 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months – Tribunal to disburse amount to claimants as per ratio fixed earlier [Paras 14–17].

Civil Writ - SARFAESI Act – Priority of Secured Creditor – Refusal to Register Sale Deed – Bank conducted e-auction of secured asset after borrower defaulted and deposited full sale consideration – Sub-Registrar refused registration citing later attachment for State tax dues – Held: Secured creditor’s charge created earlier in time has priority over subsequent attachment for State dues – Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration on basis of later revenue entry [Paras 1–3, 5–8].

Charge – Priority – Bank’s Mortgage vs State Dues – Mortgage in favour of Bank created in 2013 by deposit of title deeds – Charge in favour of State Food and Supply Department created only in 2018 – No statute conferring first charge on State for dues arising from Custom Milling Agreement – Held: Such dues are contractual and do not override prior mortgage of secured creditor [Paras 5–7].

Revenue Entry – Legal Effect – Rapat Entry – Attachment entry in revenue records does not determine or extinguish rights of parties – Such administrative entry cannot defeat statutory right of secured creditor under SARFAESI Act – Refusal to register sale deed based solely on rapat entry held illegal [Paras 8–8.1].

Crown Debt – Priority – Settled Law – Right of secured creditor to recover secured debt has precedence over crown debts and Government dues unless statute expressly provides otherwise – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions reaffirming primacy of secured creditor’s claim [Paras 8.1–9].

SARFAESI Amendment – Section 26E – Clarification – Though Section 26E was notified later and not directly applicable to facts of case – Court clarified that for transactions after 24.01.2020, statutory priority to secured creditors would operate in terms of Section 26E of SARFAESI Act [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Mandamus issued directing Sub-Registrar to register sale deed in favour of auction purchaser within two months – Attachment/charge in revenue records in favour of State quashed – Liberty reserved to State to recover dues after satisfaction of Bank’s claim or by other lawful means – Costs of Rs.25,000/- imposed on State of Haryana.

Rape and POCSO – Conviction – Repeated Penetrative Sexual Assault on Minor – Accused convicted for offences under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 r/w Section 5(l) POCSO Act – Prosecution alleged repeated sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl between September 2015 and February 2016 – Trial Court imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine – Held: Evidence on record proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 1–4, 31].

Evidence – Testimony of Child Victim – Reliability – Victim’s deposition consistent, cogent and free from embellishments – Clear narration of repeated sexual assault inside her house – Medical evidence showed torn hymen and signs consistent with sexual intercourse – Testimony corroborated by mother of the victim – Held: Sole testimony of victim of sterling quality sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 8–12].

POCSO Act – Section 29 – Presumption of Guilt – Foundational facts of penetrative sexual assault proved through oral and medical evidence – Statutory presumption under Section 29 attracted – Accused failed to rebut presumption – Held: Trial Court rightly invoked presumption against accused [Paras 11–12].

Age of Victim – Proof – Birth Certificate and Oral Evidence – Ext.P2 birth certificate showed date of birth as 18.08.2002 though name of child not recorded – Victim’s unchallenged testimony regarding date of birth corroborated by certificate – Absence of child’s name in birth certificate not fatal – Held: Age of victim proved on cumulative appreciation of evidence [Paras 13, 28–30].

POCSO Act – Determination of Age – Applicability of Juvenile Justice Acts – Principles in Jarnail Singh and Yuvaprakash considered – Held: Provisions of Juvenile Justice Acts provide guidance but are not the exclusive mode for determining age of a victim under the POCSO Act – Courts may rely on evidence admissible under the Evidence Act – Rigid application of JJ Act norms would defeat object of POCSO Act [Paras 15–27].

Sentence – Leniency – Refusal – Nature of offence grave involving repeated sexual assault on a minor – Young age of accused not a mitigating circumstance – Minimum statutory punishment justified – Compensation awarded to victim upheld [Paras 5–6, 31].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 r/w Section 5(l) POCSO Act confirmed – Compensation to victim sustained.

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Reply to Counter-Claim – Failure to File – Plaintiff failed to file reply to counter-claim and replication to written statement within prescribed time – Trial Court struck off defence – Revision petition filed challenging curtailment of right [Paras 1-2].

Counter-Claim – Nature – Treated as Plaint – Applicability of CPC – Counter-claim to be treated as plaint and provisions of CPC applicable as in a regular suit – Plaintiff required to file reply within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days and beyond on sufficient cause [Para 4].

Limitation for Filing Reply – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Period of 90 Days Not Mandatory – Court empowered to permit filing beyond 90 days on showing of sufficient cause – However, party must disclose cogent and convincing reasons for delay [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Order – Jurisdictional Error – Order Passed by Wrong Forum – Order curtailing defence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class instead of Civil Judge having jurisdiction – Such procedural irregularity noted by High Court [Para 5].

Equitable Relief – Interest of Justice – One Opportunity Granted – Though petitioner failed to justify delay, prejudice caused by striking off defence and jurisdictional lapse warranted indulgence – One opportunity granted to file reply and replication subject to heavy costs [Paras 5-6].

Costs – Deterrent Measure – Rs. 50,000/- imposed – Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Panipat and Rs. 30,000/- payable to respondents – Condition precedent for filing reply [Para 6].

Decision: Civil Revision disposed of – Impugned order modified – Petitioner granted one opportunity to file reply to counter-claim and replication subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- – Directions issued in interest of justice.

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Interim Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Dependents – Voluntary Financial Obligations – Professional Qualification of Wife – Modification of Quantum.

Matrimonial Law – Interim Maintenance – Quantum Assessment – Deductions and Dependents – The petitioner-husband challenged the Family Court's order awarding ₹15,000/- each to the respondent-wife and minor child as interim maintenance - The petitioner argued that the wife is an MBA and capable of earning, and that he has liabilities towards his aged parents, divorced sister, and loan EMIs - The High Court upheld the maintenance to the wife but modified the child's maintenance - The Court held that the wife's educational qualification does not absolve the husband of his statutory duty if she has no current independent income - It was further held that the petitioner's father (a pensioner) and divorced sister (having independent legal recourse) are not "dependents" for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. calculations - Personal loan EMIs were ruled as voluntary obligations not deductible from income - Applying the Anurita Vohra formula to the husband's income of approx. ₹60,000/-, the Court found the wife's share reasonable but reduced the child's share to ₹10,000/- considering her tender age of 3.5 years - Paras 1-16.

Employability of Wife – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Professional Degree – Held: Mere possession of a professional degree (MBA) cannot substitute for actual employment or income - While qualification is a relevant factor, the primary consideration is whether the wife presently has an independent and sufficient source of income to maintain herself with dignity - The wife's responsibility towards a minor child and her health issues were rightly considered by the Family Court to negate the argument of potential employability - Paras 8, 15.

Definition of Dependents – Moral vs. Statutory Duty – Parents and Siblings – Held: A father receiving a regular pension (₹17,000/- p.m.) cannot be treated as financially dependent on the son for Section 125 Cr.P.C. calculations - Similarly, a divorced sister has legal remedies to claim maintenance from her former husband; assistance to her falls within the realm of moral duty, not legal dependency enforceable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Such voluntary/moral obligations cannot dilute the statutory duty towards the wife and child - Paras 10-11.

Deductibility of EMIs – Computation of Income – Held: Monthly installments (EMIs) paid towards personal loans are voluntary financial obligations and cannot be considered mandatory statutory deductions - Maintenance rights of the wife and child cannot be defeated on the account of EMIs paid by the husband towards property or personal loans - Paras 14.

Apportionment of Income – Family Resource Cake – Held: Relying on Anurita Vohra, the income of the earning member is a 'family resource cake' to be distributed equitably - With an income of approx. ₹60,000/-, dividing into four shares (two for husband, one each for dependents) yields approx. ₹15,000/- per share - This calculation was found consistent with law, though the child's share was marginally reduced due to age-specific needs - Paras 12-13.

Decision: Appeal allowed in part - The interim maintenance for the minor child (Respondent No. 2) is reduced from ₹15,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month - The maintenance of ₹15,000/- awarded to the wife (Respondent No. 1) is upheld - Paras 16-17.

Specific Relief – Specific Performance – Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal – Plaintiff sought enforcement of agreement of sale dated 17.09.1998 – Trial Court decreed suit and First Appellate Court confirmed decree – Defendant admitted execution of agreement but pleaded it was nominal and executed for loan – High Court held that execution of agreement and receipt of advance were proved and defence of nominal document not established – Held: No ground to interfere with concurrent findings [Paras 1–11, 27–34].

Civil Procedure – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court reiterated that interference is permissible only where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled law – Reappreciation of evidence impermissible – Held: No substantial question of law arose for consideration [Paras 14, 33–34].

Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Compliance by First Appellate Court – Appellant contended that appellate judgment was vitiated for failure to frame multiple points for determination – Court held that First Appellate Court discussed evidence, gave reasons and substantially complied with Rule 31 – Mere absence of multiple points does not vitiate judgment [Paras 15–24].

Specific Relief Act – Section 20 – Discretionary Relief – Appellant contended that courts below failed to consider hardship and conduct of parties – High Court held that discretion was exercised judiciously after considering conduct, admissions of defendant, readiness and willingness of plaintiff – Mere rise in property value does not disentitle plaintiff from relief [Paras 25–32].

Evidence – Admission – Effect – Defendant admitted execution of agreement of sale and that attesting witnesses were her own family members – Failure to examine attestors to support plea of nominal agreement – Held: Adverse inference justified against defendant [Paras 21, 27–29].

Equitable Relief – Delay and Hardship – Consideration – Plaintiff issued legal notice within contractual period and filed suit without delay – Defendant enjoyed advance amount for decades – Held: No inequity or hardship warranting refusal of specific performance [Paras 28–32].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 26.07.2011 in A.S. No. 18 of 2007 confirming decree dated 08.05.2007 in O.S. No. 161 of 2001 upheld – No substantial question of law involved – Parties to bear their own costs.

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].