Service Law – Seniority – Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) – Deputation followed by absorption – Impact on Seniority – Held: An ICT transfer is to be treated as a deputation until formally absorbed – Seniority is to be reckoned only from date of absorption in the new Commissionerate, not from date of deputation/joining – High Court upheld the CAT’s direction that transferred Inspectors are junior to promotees in the transferee Commissionerate – Circular No. 8/2011 and Rule 5(2) apply – Earlier position treating such transferred officers as seniors was contrary to rules – [Paras 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22]

Seniority – Direct Recruits vs Promotees vs Transferees – Rule Position – Inspectors who came on ICT and later absorbed cannot claim seniority over those promoted in the new cadre during the interim – High Court clarifies that ICT is not an open transfer but a deputation on request, governed by Rule 5(2) of the 2011 Circular – [Paras 12, 15, 18]

Absorption – Date of Absorption Crucial – Mere joining on ICT does not imply immediate absorption – Only formal absorption confers rights to seniority in the new unit – Seniority cannot be retrospectively counted from the date of initial joining – [Paras 10, 12, 18]

Final Decision: OPs Dismissed – Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal affirmed – Petitioners not entitled to seniority over departmental promotees in the transferee Commissionerates – [Paras 20, 22]

Civil Law - Partition – Family Arrangement – Relinquishment of Share – Plaintiff claimed joint allotment in ancestral property along with her brothers under 1981 partition deed – Trial Court granted her 1/12th share – On appeal, High Court held that plaintiff and her mother had explicitly relinquished their share in favour of defendants 1 and 2 under Ex-B.34, the registered partition deed dated 25.09.1981 – Recitals, witness testimony (D.W.2), and conduct of parties including subsequent sale deeds corroborated relinquishment – Held: Plaintiff had relinquished her share and cannot claim co-ownership over suit properties – Trial Court erred in granting decree for partition [Paras 3.4, 10.2, 21–26, 34]

Documentary Evidence – Deficit Stamp Duty – Admissibility – Ex-B.34 marked in evidence without objection – Held: Under Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, its admissibility on stamp duty grounds cannot be questioned later – Reliance placed on Javer Chand vs Pukhraj Surana and Shyamal Kumar Roy vs Sushil Kumar Agarwal – Stamp duty deficiency not a ground to reject Ex-B.34 [Paras 30–33]

Joint Possession – Onus and Proof – Plaintiff relied on water tax and electricity bills in name of second defendant and claimed joint possession – High Court held that such payment, without ownership evidence, does not establish joint possession – Plaintiff or her husband could be permissive occupants – No evidence of co-ownership or separate allotment found – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove joint possession and suit valuation incorrect [Paras 36]

Limitation – Challenge to Registered Documents – Plaintiff did not challenge Ex-B.34 (1981), Ex-B.36 (1983), or Ex-B.3 (1986) within limitation period – Court held that claim barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act – Plaintiff cannot seek partition in absence of challenge to earlier relinquishment [Paras 10.6, 34]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court set aside – Suit for partition dismissed – No costs [Paras 37]

Co-operative Societies – Election Disqualification – Default in Other Society – Not Automatic – Disqualification under Section 29C(1)(a) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act applies even to persons seeking election and not just those already elected – However, the disqualification is not automatic – Held: A person cannot be disqualified solely based on an allegation of default – An order of disqualification must be passed by the Registrar after giving opportunity of hearing under Section 29C(7) – Without such order, rejection of nomination is invalid [Paras 11–12].

Election Law – Nomination Rejection – Role of Returning Officer – Returning Officer rejected Respondent No.5’s nomination based on an objection of loan default in another society – Held: In absence of a formal disqualification order under Section 29C(7), Returning Officer acted without jurisdiction – Rejection set aside [Paras 13.1–13.3].

District Election Officer – Scope of Intervention – DRCS, acting as District Election Officer, directed acceptance of nomination of Respondent No.5 – Held: Direction was legal and proper in the absence of a formal disqualification order – Duty of Election Officer is to ensure lawful conduct of elections [Paras 14.1–14.5].

Writ Jurisdiction – Election Disputes – Interference by High Court – Though courts generally refrain from interfering once election process begins, interference is justified where there is a jurisdictional error or statutory violation – No error found in DRCS's decision – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 5.12, 15.2, 16.1].

Interpretation of Statutes – Section 29C(1)(a) KCS Act – Disqualification due to default – Language of Section includes default to “any other society” – However, enforcement requires adjudication under Section 29C(7) – Held: Harmonious interpretation requires procedural safeguards to be followed before disqualifying a candidate [Paras 11.3–12.7].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No automatic disqualification under Section 29C(1)(a) – Registrar did not issue any disqualification order against Respondent No.5 – Returning Officer had no authority to reject nomination – DRCS rightly directed its acceptance – Election results to be announced within seven days – Liberty reserved to challenge eligibility through proceedings under Section 70 of the KCS Act [Paras 15.2–16.3].

Civil Writ - Service Law – Suspension – Rule 10 of KCS (CCA) Rules – Petitioner, a Panchayat Development Officer, suspended based on a video clip allegedly showing him accepting illegal gratification – Suspension order issued by Disciplinary Authority based on communication from CEO – Tribunal declined interim relief – High Court held that suspension under Rule 10 requires independent satisfaction of Disciplinary Authority – Mere reliance on third-party communication insufficient without due application of mind – Allegation based on viral video clip not substantiated by complaint or FIR – Political motive alleged [Paras 1–3]

Administrative Law – Role of Tribunal – Tribunal’s refusal to grant ex-parte stay – High Court declined to interfere at this stage – Directed Tribunal to decide interim relief application on merits during next hearing – Time-bound directions issued to dispose of application by 14.11.2025 – Held: Writ not maintainable during pendency of statutory remedy unless exceptional grounds shown [Paras 4–6]

Judicial Discipline – Limited Interference – High Court emphasized that petitioner’s grievance regarding suspension should first be addressed by Tribunal – No adjudication on merits at this stage – Observed that proper hearing with respondent’s submissions would enable fair consideration – Petition disposed with liberty to pursue remedy before Tribunal [Paras 5–6]

Decision – Writ petition disposed – Tribunal directed to decide interim relief on 30.10.2025 and final disposal by 14.11.2025 [Para 6]

Civil Law – Order XVIII CPC – Right to Begin – Plaintiffs filed memo stating they had no evidence at present and reserved right to lead rebuttal evidence – Trial Court accepted memo and called upon defendant to lead evidence – Held: Improper exercise of discretion – Under Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3 CPC, plaintiffs must lead evidence on all issues where burden lies on them – Rebuttal evidence can only be led where burden lies on defendant – Trial Court order allowing plaintiffs to skip primary evidence and proceed directly to rebuttal without legal basis [Paras 3-11, 14].

Order XVIII Rule 3 – Several Issues – Right to Reserve Evidence – When burden of proving certain issues lies on defendant, plaintiffs may reserve evidence in rebuttal – However, for all other issues where burden lies on plaintiffs, evidence must be led first – Trial Court’s interpretation incorrect – Plaintiffs cannot avoid leading evidence on their own issues under guise of reserving rebuttal evidence [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Precedent – Interpretation of Order XVIII – Bombay High Court’s decisions in Bhagirath Shankar Somani v. Rameshchandra Daulal Soni and Haran Bidi Suppliers v. V.M. and Co. followed – Held: Rule 1 of Order XVIII is enabling and cannot be used by court to compel defendant to lead evidence before plaintiff – Karnataka High Court agrees with Bombay view – Orissa High Court’s contrary view in Rama Krushna Mohanty not binding and distinguished [Paras 12-13].

Article 227 – Writ Jurisdiction – Trial Court committed jurisdictional error in misapplying procedural law – High Court under Article 227 has supervisory power to correct legal errors affecting fairness of trial – Writ Petition allowed to secure just and lawful trial procedure [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 10.11.2021 in O.S. No. 193/2019 set aside – Plaintiffs directed to lead evidence on all issues except issue no.2 – Plaintiffs permitted to lead rebuttal evidence only after defendant adduces evidence on issue no.2 – Trial Court directed to expedite trial considering pendency since 2019 [Paras 14].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case – Allegation of ₹10 lakh bribe involving public servant – Cash recovered from Petitioner’s vehicle – Petitioner not named in FIR but added during investigation – Held: FIR discloses cognizable offence and prima facie material exists – Investigation at nascent stage – No grounds for quashing at this stage [Paras 1, 8-9, 15-17]

Prevention of Corruption Act – Role of Private Individual – Petitioner argued as being outside scope of PC Act as he is not a public servant – Court held: PC Act extends to private persons who abet, conspire or facilitate corruption involving public servants – Involvement of Petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage [Paras 6(j), 14-15]

Criminal Procedure – Stage of Investigation – Court reiterated that investigation is executive function – Judicial interference limited unless FIR is patently illegal or lacks ingredients of offence – Presence of Rs.10 lakh cash in Petitioner’s vehicle sufficient to continue probe – Court refuses to halt investigation [Paras 11-13, 15-16]

Evidence – Recovery of Bribe Money – Petitioner claimed absence of delivery details and improper Memo procedure – Court observed that ₹10 lakh recovered from Petitioner’s car and FIR discloses sequence of events justifying investigation – Alleged irregularities can be examined after charge-sheet or during trial [Paras 6(g)-(h), 15-16]

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Demand for mobile phone passwords by CBI – Petitioner claimed violation – Court noted CBI’s position that password is a means of access and not testimonial evidence – Issue kept open for future examination [Paras 6(m), 7(h)]

Decision: CRLMC petitions dismissed – FIR and investigation not quashed – Liberty granted to petitioners to approach court after filing of final report or charge-sheet, if aggrieved – No interference warranted at current stage [Paras 17]

Motor Accident Claim – Insurance Liability – Validity of Cover Note – Insurer challenged award on ground that no policy was issued pursuant to the cover note – Tribunal held that insurer failed to cancel the cover note or notify the authority as required under Section 147(5) – Held: A cover note has the same legal effect as a policy unless cancelled – Insurer liable to pay compensation [Paras 10-12.5, 23-24]

Rash and Negligent Driving – Factual Finding – Auto Rickshaw ran over claimant’s leg after she fell from vehicle due to rash driving – Tribunal found accident was caused by rash and negligent driving – No challenge to this finding in appeal – Held: Tribunal’s conclusion on negligence remains unassailed and binding [Paras 13, 13.1]

Quantum of Compensation – Routine Injury – Compensation of ₹1,10,600 awarded under heads of medical expenses, incidental costs, and pain and suffering – Tribunal rightly did not award under other heads due to lack of proof of hospitalization or income loss – Held: Assessment reasonable and does not warrant interference [Paras 16, 16.1, 17-19]

Interest on Compensation – Rate Enhanced – Tribunal awarded interest @6% p.a. from date of cross-examination – Court enhanced interest rate to 9% per annum in view of settled precedents and long pendency of claim – Held: Enhanced interest justified [Paras 20-21]

Burden of Proof – Insurance Policy – Insurer claimed no policy issued by Ahmedabad Division – However, failed to deny issuance of cover note or produce evidence of its cancellation – Tribunal rightly rejected insurer’s plea – Held: Burden was on insurer to disprove liability once cover note admitted and not cancelled [Paras 10-12.5, 22.2]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Compensation of ₹1,10,600 upheld – Rate of interest modified from 6% to 9% per annum – Appellant directed to deposit amount within 30 days – No costs awarded.

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Default in Rent Payment – Concurrent Finding of Default – Defendant tenant failed to prove payment of rent for April, May, and July 2010 despite claim of postal delivery of cheques and court deposit – Courts below found the tenant in default based on unrefuted evidence and absence of cross-examination of landlord’s witnesses – Tenant’s plea of enhanced rent being exorbitant and landlord’s refusal to accept rent found insufficient without resort to fair rent proceedings under Rent Control Act [Paras 18, 22, 28].

Tenancy Law – Bonafide Requirement – Commercial Premises – Landlord proved requirement of premises for automobile dealership of wife and son – Evidence adduced through Exhibits 6 & 7 accepted – Courts below held landlord best judge of suitability of premises – Tenant’s objection regarding lack of issue framing on bonafide need rejected as requirement pleaded and established [Paras 20, 24, 29].

Civil Procedure – Ex-parte Proceedings – Effect of Non-appearance of Substituted Defendants – Legal heirs of original tenant failed to appear and contest post-substitution – Trial proceeded ex parte – Courts drew adverse inference due to absence of evidence rebutting plaintiff’s case – Held: Mere pleadings without proof insufficient – adverse inference justified under Section 114, Evidence Act [Paras 16-17, 28.1, 30].

Compensation – Unauthorized Occupation – Trial Court awarded Rs. 2000/- per day – Appellate Court reduced to Rs. 500/- per day citing it was ‘high in degree’ – High Court held though brief, appellate court assigned a valid reason and interference not warranted in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 33-34].

Subsequent Events – Land Acquisition by Government – Notification dated 28.05.2025 issued for acquisition of suit premises – Held: Decree passed much earlier on 05.12.2020 (Trial Court) and 07.11.2022 (Appellate Court) – Subsequent acquisition does not invalidate earlier judgments – No retrospective application of notification – Tenant’s argument on loss of landlord-tenant relationship post-notification rejected [Paras 27, 31].

Arbitration Clause – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Clause 7 of original agreement provided for arbitration – Tenant raised objection under Section 8 of Arbitration Act – Held: Not raised at the appropriate stage or properly pursued – Civil court’s jurisdiction upheld in light of parties’ conduct and non-invocation of arbitration mechanism [Implicitly considered – Para 7].

Decision: Both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Eviction, arrears of rent, and compensation at the reduced rate of Rs. 500/- per day upheld – Subsequent land acquisition has no bearing on decree validity – No costs awarded [Paras 36–38].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Validity of Statutory Notice – Appellant alleged that respondent borrowed ₹2,00,000 and issued cheque dated 30.03.2007 – Cheque dishonoured on 03.04.2007 for insufficient funds – Statutory notice sent on 13.04.2007 returned on 18.04.2007 as “not claimed” – Trial Court dismissed complaint on ground that notice was incorrectly addressed – On appeal, High Court upheld acquittal holding that notice (Ex.P3) and postal cover (Ex.P5) contained material correction in respondent’s name, originally written as “Thangarajan” instead of “Thiyagarajan” – Evidence of Postman (D.W.1) and Postal Officer (D.W.2) corroborated the error – Held: Mandatory requirement of proper service under Section 138(b) N.I. Act not complied with – Acquittal justified [Paras 3–6]

Presumption under Section 139 – Cheque not denied – Respondent claimed it was given as security during financial dealings between fathers of both parties – High Court held that presumption under Section 139 does not arise automatically where statutory notice was not properly served – Burden of proving service not discharged by complainant – No interference warranted with trial court's finding [Paras 4–5]

Evidence – Postal Records and Witness Testimony – Postal receipt (Ex.P4) and returned cover (Ex.P5) bore serial no. 5558 – D.W.1 (Postman) and D.W.2 (Postal Officer) confirmed letter was originally addressed to “Thangarajan” – Correction made later – Endorsements on postal cover supported this – Court accepted their testimonies and postal records (Ex.D1 & Ex.D2) – Held: Trial court rightly found that notice not delivered due to incorrect addressing [Paras 3–6]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in C.C. No. 158 of 2011 upheld – No grounds to interfere with findings [Para 7]