Family Law - Tribal Succession – Gender Equality – Burden of Proof – Scheduled Tribe (Gond) – Ancestral Property – Daughter’s Right to Inherit – Error in Law by Lower Courts – Appeal Allowed – Matter Remanded – Plaintiff, a daughter of deceased tribal father (Gond community), sought 1/5th share in ancestral house property – Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim holding burden was on her to prove custom allowing daughters to inherit – Held: View contrary to law laid down by this Court in Babulal v. Resmabai and Supreme Court in Ram Charan v. Sukhram – When succession law is silent, burden lies on party asserting exclusion to prove custom – Lower Courts erred in shifting burden on plaintiff – Findings perverse and unsustainable in law – Matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with principles of justice, equity, and Article 14 of Constitution [Paras 2, 21–26].

Customary Law – Proof of Exclusion – Article 14 – Scheduled Tribe – Constitutional Mandate – Plaintiff Proved Tribal Identity – No Custom Proven by Defendants – Lower Courts Misapplied Law – Plaintiff established she was daughter of deceased tribal father and belonged to Gond ST community – No contrary custom proven by defendants to justify exclusion – In absence of valid customary exclusion, denial of share to tribal women violates Article 14 – Held: Custom cannot be presumed – Must be pleaded and proved by party relying on it – Misapplication of burden of proof rendered concurrent findings unsustainable [Paras 21–24].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings Overturned – Legal Error – Matter Remanded – Though concurrent findings existed, both Courts fundamentally erred in applying incorrect legal principles – Denial of inheritance on basis of misapplied burden caused miscarriage of justice – Matter remanded to Trial Court with liberty to both parties to lead evidence and decision to be made afresh as per settled legal position [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court quashed – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision after hearing both sides and applying correct legal principles.

Arbitration – Judicial Interference – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Appeal against judgment upholding arbitral award awarding contractor Rs.6.66 lakhs with interest – Held: Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act is narrowly circumscribed – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the arbitrator – Award found to be reasoned and based on plausible interpretation – No patent illegality or perversity demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–13, 33–35]

Contract Law – Delay in Execution – Time as Essence – Though the contract originally required completion by 03.07.1992, time was extended until 31.05.1993 – Arbitral Tribunal found delays attributable to Railways’ conduct – Contract rescission held unjustified – Tribunal’s findings on delay and liability upheld as based on evidence and within arbitral jurisdiction [Paras 2(iii)–(v), 31]

Arbitration – Interpretation of Contract – Pricing and Claims – Claims 6 and 7 challenged as contrary to contractual pricing – Tribunal interpreted contract clauses and ISI specifications governing waterproofing and bitumen application – Held: Pricing interpretation was reasonable and within bounds of contract – No ground to interfere on reappraisal of evidence [Paras 32]

Public Policy and Patent Illegality – No Violation – No violation of public policy, fundamental policy of Indian law, or basic morality demonstrated – No fraud, corruption, or procedural impropriety found – Tribunal applied proper reasoning and considered all relevant material – Award immune from curial interference [Paras 13, 27–30, 33]

Arbitration – Interest on Award – Permissibility – Arbitrator awarded 12% interest p.a. on claims and cost of arbitration – Held: Grant of interest in consonance with Section 31(7) of the A&C Act – Contractual bar not absolute – No legal infirmity in award of interest [Para 7]

Judicial Precedents – Conformity with Supreme Court Guidance – High Court reiterates principles from MMTC v. Vedanta, PSA Sical Terminals, Associate Builders, DMRC, and Reliance Infrastructure – Emphasises minimal interference, deference to arbitrator’s findings, and narrow scope of review under Sections 34/37 [Paras 14–26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with the arbitral award or the District Judge’s judgment upholding it – Award found legally sound, reasoned, and within jurisdiction – No costs imposed – Interim orders vacated [Paras 34–36]

Civil Law – Partition - Assigned Lands – Transfer Validity – Applicability of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 – Partition Suit – Adverse Possession – Limitation – Appeal Allowed – Sale of land in 1964 challenged by plaintiffs on ground it violated provisions of the 1977 Assigned Lands Act – Trial court held sale void under Section 3 of the Act – Held: As per G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 and G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018, lands assigned before 18.06.1954 are outside the scope of the 1977 Act – Sale deed executed in 1964 valid – Plaintiffs’ claim to title not proven – Suit for partition without seeking declaratory relief is not maintainable – Plaintiffs failed to implead legal representatives of deceased co-plaintiffs – Suit partly abated – Further, defendants had continuous possession for over 25 years – Plaintiffs’ claim barred by limitation and adverse possession established [Paras 19, 23-27, 28-32, 34].

Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment – Trial as Adult – The Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court found the revisionist (aged 17 years, 6 months) capable of understanding consequences of the offence under Section 302 IPC and directed trial as adult – Held: Preliminary assessment was not in conformity with Section 15(1) of JJ Act and Rules 10A & 11(2) of the JJ Model Rules – Mandatory requirement to seek assistance from trained psychologists and undertake proper cognitive and emotional intelligence evaluation was not fulfilled – The psychologist’s report was vague and failed to specify tests or findings on IQ or EQ – Assessment was perfunctory and failed to follow mandatory procedural safeguards [Paras 3, 4, 7-10, 28-30, 36].

Juvenile Justice – Guidelines – Need for Framework – Court finds absence of any statutory guidelines or framework defining the process or tools for psychological assessment under Section 15 of JJ Act – Refers to Supreme Court judgment in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 – Guidelines framed by NCPCR (2023) considered insufficient – Held: Until legislature frames appropriate norms, Court lays down detailed mandatory guidelines for Boards and Children’s Courts to conduct proper preliminary assessments of juveniles alleged to have committed heinous offences [Paras 20-25, 34-35].

Juvenile Justice – Role of Psychologist – Assessment Procedure – Psychologist’s report must include specific cognitive and emotional tests like Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence, VSMS, Bhatiya Battery Test etc. – Must state findings on child’s IQ, EQ, social and emotional maturity – Report should aid Board in evaluating physical and mental capacity to commit and understand consequences of the alleged offence – Mere recording of past criminal involvement is insufficient for trying child as adult [Paras 30, 34(i)-(ii)].

Juvenile Justice – Compliance with NCPCR Guidelines – The Court held that Boards and Courts must obtain Social Investigation Report (SIR), Social Background Report (SBR), Individual Care Plan (ICP), and witness statements per JJ Act and Rules – Found that most Boards do not comply with this mandatory documentation during assessment – Directed State Registrar (Compliance) to circulate order to all JJBs and Children’s Courts for strict adherence [Paras 25-27, 39].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Orders dated 04.12.2020 (JJB) and 30.11.2023 (Children’s Court) quashed – Matter remanded to Juvenile Justice Board for fresh preliminary assessment in accordance with detailed guidelines issued by this Court – Direction issued for circulation to all JJBs and Children’s Courts in the State [Paras 36-39].

Property Law – Injunction – Auction Sale – Challenge to possession – Appellants (legal heirs of original plaintiff) sought permanent injunction against Town Municipal Council (TMC) from interfering with their possession over suit properties – Plaintiffs originally filed suit for declaration of title, injunction and mutation of names in revenue records, but later restricted relief to permanent injunction – Trial court dismissed suit, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove possession – First appellate court concurred – High Court held that findings of both courts below were not perverse and were based on material evidence – Held: Once plaintiffs abandoned plea for declaration and failed to establish possession, suit for bare injunction was rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 15, 52, 57, 68, 86].

Civil Procedure – Abandonment of Relief – Plaintiffs initially sought declaration of title and permanent injunction, but restricted claim to injunction during trial – Held: Abandonment of prayer for declaration estopped plaintiffs from questioning validity of auction sale or claiming title – Suit thereafter becomes one for bare injunction – Courts cannot test title or validity of auction proceedings in such suit unless appropriate pleadings and relief are sought – [Paras 45, 51, 52, 77, 80].

Title and Possession – Hypothecation and Auction – Suit properties mortgaged to Excise Department in 1958 – Upon default, auction held in 1960 and confirmed in 1961 in favour of TMC – Plaintiffs failed to challenge auction – Sale was confirmed twice by Deputy Commissioner and reflected in revenue records – Court held that plaintiffs, who admitted mortgage and auction, cannot seek injunction without establishing legal possession – Possession presumed to follow title, especially in case of vacant land – [Paras 48, 66, 68, 78, 85].

Documentary Evidence – Revenue Records – Plaintiffs relied on revenue entries (RoRs), tax receipts, mutation records and correspondence to prove possession – Courts held entries in plaintiffs’ name were made illegally and set aside in revision – Revenue records (Ex.P31, P32) from 1979-87 reflected TMC’s name in possession columns – Subsequent entries in plaintiffs’ name were obtained fraudulently and without notice to TMC – Order of Special Deputy Commissioner setting aside plaintiff’s mutation was upheld – [Paras 70–76].

Administrative Law – Validity of Auction – Plaintiffs contended that auction violated mandatory procedures under Mysore Land Revenue Code and Rules – Court held: Without seeking declaratory relief and challenging sale proceedings, such contentions cannot be entertained in suit for injunction – Moreover, procedural irregularities, if any, do not vitiate title of auction purchaser when sale is otherwise confirmed – [Paras 18–20, 48, 86].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Plaintiffs, through plaintiff no.1, participated in multiple litigations and never challenged the auction or its confirmation – Plaintiffs aware of auction since 1960s but took no steps to set aside sale – Court held: Plaintiffs acquiesced to auction and lost right to challenge – [Paras 62, 79, 81, 82].

Concurrent Findings – High Court’s Interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: Interference in second appeal only justified when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Both courts below assessed pleadings, depositions, documentary evidence and gave reasoned findings – No perversity or error of law found – [Paras 47, 59, 68, 76].

Substantial Question of Law – Answered in Affirmative – Whether courts were justified in denying injunction when auction was not followed by delivery of possession but revenue entries and evidence showed TMC’s title and possession – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove possession; auction and mutation in TMC’s name valid – Substantial question answered in favour of TMC – [Paras 46, 86].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Findings of trial and appellate court upheld – Plaintiffs failed to establish possession or maintainability of suit for bare injunction – Request for stay of order rejected – [Final Order].

Army Law – Disobedience of Lawful Command – Section 41(2) of the Army Act – Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Legality of Summary Trial – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Scope and Limitations – Petitioner, a Subedar in EME Corps, challenged disciplinary action and discharge alleging that Movement Order was never served and enquiry was held ex parte – Record revealed that Petitioner was ordered to report to HQ Technical Group, EME, Delhi Cantt., but refused to comply – Summary trial conducted under Army Rules 22–26 after due opportunity – Eight prosecution and eight defence witnesses examined – Petitioner cross-examined witnesses but refused to sign proceedings – Held: Proceedings conducted in accordance with Army Act and Rules – No violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under certiorari jurisdiction – Findings supported by rational evidence – Punishment of “Severe Reprimand” not disproportionate [Paras 25–31].

Army Law – Discharge from Service – Extension of Service – Effect of Punishment of Severe Reprimand – Annexure-I to Appendix “A” of Army HQ Letter dated 21.09.1998 – Held: Personnel punished under Section 41(1) or (2) of the Army Act ineligible for extension for three years – Discharge validly ordered on completion of terms of engagement – No infirmity in discharge order [Paras 13–14, 31].

Judicial Review – Certiorari – Limits of High Court Interference – Finding of Fact – Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 – Union of India v. Major A. Hussain, (1998) 1 SCC 357 – Court not to act as appellate forum in military discipline matters – Review limited to jurisdictional errors, perversity, or procedural unfairness [Paras 19–21].

Service Law – Pension – Right to Pension – Deferred Wages – Direction to Facilitate Pension Processing – Court observed that though punishment and discharge are valid, pension cannot be denied – Directed respondents to furnish pension papers to petitioner within six weeks and process pension from date of superannuation within four months thereafter [Para 32].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Punishment and discharge upheld – Respondents directed to process and release pension upon completion of formalities by petitioner [Paras 32–33].

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant – Bonafide Requirement – Contradictory Pleas – Eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act on ground of bonafide need for opening boutique – Tenant granted leave to defend on triable issue of concealment regarding adjacent shop No. 2903 – Held: Learned ARC erred in presuming bonafide requirement without appreciating tenant’s documentary evidence and cross-examination exposing contradictions in landlady’s case – Adjacent shop was let out prior to petition despite being claimed as occupied by son – ARC failed to adjudicate on falsity of eviction petition and omitted key findings – Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 4, 7–13, 21–25, 28].

Rent Control – Revisional Jurisdiction – Misapplication of Law – ARC placed burden of proving lack of bonafide on tenant contrary to settled law – Under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, burden lies on landlord to prove genuine, real, and honest requirement – Revisional court justified in interfering where trial court judgment is perverse, arbitrary or ignores material evidence – Cited: Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [Para 26–27].

Falsehood in Eviction Petition – Artificial Scarcity – Tenant demonstrated landlady’s suppression of letting out premises to Vijay Kumar – Landlady took inconsistent stances in pleadings and cross-examination – ARC ignored contradiction between pleading of staircase conversion and evidence of recent tenancy – Eviction petition based on artificial scarcity held not sustainable unless remanded for proper adjudication [Paras 8–11, 18–24].

Remand – Scope of Reconsideration – Petition allowed – Eviction order dated 07.05.2024 set aside – Matter remanded back to ARC for fresh adjudication on bonafide requirement after considering entire evidence and pleadings – Direction to complete proceedings within six months [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – PC Act Ss. 13(1)(c), 13(2) – IPC Ss. 409, 468, 471 – Allegation that petitioner misused official position as Secretary, TN Legislative Assembly, and claimed travel allowance for private visit – Petitioner obtained Speaker’s permission and undertook travel; no records of meeting with Secretary General, Lok Sabha – Held: Whether trip was private or official is factual issue – Since act reasonably connected with official duty, sanction under Section 197 CrPC mandatory – Cognizance without sanction improper – Prosecution directed to seek sanction by 31.12.2025, failing which petitioner entitled to discharge [Paras 16-21].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Requirement of Sanction – Section 19(1), PC Act – Petitioner had retired in 2011; amendment requiring sanction for former public servants came only in 2018 – Hence, no sanction needed under PC Act – However, CrPC S.197 sanction still required as alleged act connected with official duty [Paras 12-14, 20].

Scope of Discharge – Prima Facie Case – Trial Court dismissed discharge petition without considering sanction issue – High Court held that sanction requirement goes to root of jurisdiction – Without sanction, proceedings cannot continue – Discharge postponed until sanction issue resolved [Paras 10-13, 20-21].

Decision – Criminal Revision partly allowed – Respondent directed to seek sanction by 31.12.2025 – If sanction not obtained, petitioner entitled to discharge – Till then, trial Court not to frame charges [Paras 20-22].

Service Law – Premature Retirement – Scope and Procedure – Petitioner, a Head Typist/Computer Assistant Grade-I in OPTCL, was prematurely retired at age 53 under Clause 3(ii) of the OSEB Employees’ Age of Retirement Regulation, 1979 – Review Committee relied on Government guidelines (24.09.2019) intended to weed out inefficient or doubtful integrity employees – Held: Under Para 4 of the guidelines, review of Group-C and D employees can be undertaken only upon attaining age 50 and/or 55 years – Review at age 53 contrary to prescribed procedure – Once procedure is laid down by statute or executive instructions, it must be followed strictly [Paras 6.4–6.6].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of “Manner Prescribed” – Where statute or rule prescribes a mode for exercise of power, it must be done only in that manner or not at all – Principles reiterated from Bernard Francis Joseph v. State of Karnataka, Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja, and Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT – Review Committee acted contrary to mandatory procedure; its recommendation invalid [Paras 2.6–2.9, 6.5–6.6].

Service Law – Adverse Confidential Reports – Communication and Effect – The only alleged adverse remark in CCR for 2016–17 (“very negative attitude”) was never communicated to Petitioner – No other adverse CCR on record – Minor punishment in 2007 followed by successive promotions in 2013 and 2015 – Held: Non-communication of adverse remark vitiates reliance thereon for compulsory retirement; subsequent promotions indicate satisfactory service [Paras 6.7–6.8].

Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Review – Entire service record must be considered; old minor punishment cannot justify premature retirement absent continuing inefficiency or doubtful integrity – Reliance placed on State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, and CISF v. HC (GD) Om Prakash – Action of Corporation arbitrary and without public interest foundation [Paras 6.8–6.9].

Decision: Order dated 09.10.2020 prematurely retiring Petitioner quashed – Petitioner to be reinstated with continuity of service – Break period to be regularized with 50% back benefits – Exercise to be completed within two months [Paras 6.9–6.11].