Civil Law – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Executing Court Orders – Revision petition filed challenging dismissal of objections and issuance of warrants of possession by Executing Court – High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised to prevent manifest injustice and jurisdictional infirmity where execution would render statutory appeal infructuous [Paras 1, 3–4].

Rent Control – Ejectment for Non-Payment of Rent – Provisional Assessment – Rent Controller provisionally assessed arrears and fixed date for deposit – Tenant failed to deposit on account of Bar Association’s no-work call due to demise of an advocate – Ejectment order passed for default – Subsequent statutory remedies pursued by tenant [Paras 2, 2.2].

Execution Proceedings – Warrants of Possession – Effect on Pending Appeal – Executing Court dismissed objections and issued warrants of possession during pendency of appeal accompanied by applications under Sections 5 and 14 of Limitation Act – Held: Execution at this stage would defeat and frustrate statutory right of appeal [Paras 5.2, 6].

Limitation Act – Sections 5 and 14 – Condonation of Delay – Duty of Appellate Authority – Appeal filed along with applications for condonation of delay – Respondent sought adjournments and failed to file reply – Appellate Authority directed to decide applications expeditiously keeping in view urgency and equities involved [Paras 5.1, 6].

Equitable Relief – Conditional Protection to Tenant – High Court balanced rights of landlord and tenant by suspending warrants of possession subject to deposit of entire arrears of rent along with subsequent rent – Failure to comply to result in automatic revival of warrants – Conditional interim protection upheld as just and proper [Para 6.1].

Scope of Observations – Non-Prejudicial Nature – Observations made confined only to disposal of revision petition and not to influence merits of appeal – Appellate Authority directed to decide independently [Para 8].

Decision: Revision petition disposed of – Warrants of possession kept in abeyance pending decision on applications under Sections 5 and 14 of Limitation Act and stay application – Conditional upon deposit of arrears and current rent within one week – No opinion expressed on merits of ejectment dispute [Paras 6–9].

Civil Law – Order 41 Rule 21 CPC – Rehearing of Appeal – Ex-parte Judgment – Delay of 86 Days – Delay Condoned – Application for rehearing maintainable where sufficient cause shown for non-appearance of respondent when appeal was heard ex-parte [Paras 1–3].

Advocate’s Default – Litigant Not to Suffer – Respondents had engaged counsel who appeared initially but stopped appearing thereafter – No Special Process/Notice (SPC) issued by Court despite continuous absence of counsel – Applicants unaware of listing and hearing of appeal – Sufficient cause established for non-appearance [Paras 7, 11].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right of Hearing – Party having done everything expected by engaging counsel cannot be penalised for advocate’s lapse – Litigant not required to act as watchdog over advocate – Reliance placed on Rafiq v. Munshilal and Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad – Rehearing warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 8–9].

Knowledge of Ex-parte Decree – Irrelevant Consideration – Relevant factor is cause for absence on date of hearing and not subsequent knowledge of judgment – Participation in execution proceedings does not disentitle applicant from relief under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC [Para 10].

Delay and Conduct – Bona fide Explanation Accepted – No material to show deliberate avoidance of proceedings – Absence attributable to counsel’s failure to inform – Distinction drawn from cases where parties were negligent or relief discretionary [Paras 7, 11].

Costs – Balancing of Equities – Though rehearing allowed, applicants directed to compensate respondents – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed as condition for rehearing [Para 12].

Decision – Application Allowed – Delay Condoned – Ex-parte Judgment Dated 15.04.2025 Recalled – Second Appeal Directed to be Listed for Rehearing – MCC Disposed of [Paras 1, 11–12].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 166 – Enhancement of Compensation – Homemaker Victim – 100% Disability – Vegetative State – Subsequent Death – Just Compensation – Tribunal awarded Rs.58,22,000/- for grievous injuries suffered in 2014 accident – Claimant remained in complete vegetative state till death in 2017 – Appeal confined to quantum – Held: Compensation required substantial enhancement in light of settled Supreme Court principles [Paras 1–7, 29–30].

Assessment of Income – Homemaker – Notional Income – Tribunal erred in assessing income on lower side – High Court reiterated economic value of multifaceted services rendered by a homemaker – Relying on Lata Wadhwa and Jasbir Singh – Considering inflation and year of accident (2014), notional income reassessed at Rs.15,000 per month – Addition of 40% future prospects mandated [Paras 11–15, 27].

Future Prospects – Permanent Disability – Failure of Tribunal to add future prospects corrected – As per Pranay Sethi, 40% addition applicable even in injury cases with permanent disability – Applied to reassessed income of claimant [Paras 9, 27].

Loss of Future Earnings – 100% Functional Disability – Multiplier – Claimant rendered totally dependent with no cognitive or physical function – Functional disability treated as 100% – Multiplier of 17 applied based on age – Loss of future earning capacity recalculated accordingly [Paras 8, 15, 29].

Pain and Suffering – Vegetative State – Non-Pecuniary Damages – Claimant suffered severe head injuries, multiple hemorrhagic contusions, prolonged ventilation, tube feeding, and total immobility till death – Tribunal award found inadequate – Following K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi, compensation enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- under pain and suffering [Paras 16–19].

Attendant Charges – Continuous Care – Multiplier Method – Claimant required constant assistance for daily activities due to total disability – Applying principles in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ajay Kumar v. Jasbir Singh – Lump sum of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded towards attendant charges [Paras 20–21].

Future Medical Expenses – Death of Claimant – Estate of Injured – Insurance company’s objection rejected – Relying on Dhannalal @ Dhanraj v. Nasir Khan – Medical and attendant expenses accrued during lifetime of injured form part of estate – Rs.30,00,000/- towards future medical expenses upheld [Paras 22, 26].

Other Heads – Transportation – Loss of Amenities – Special Diet – Tribunal granted meagre or no compensation under these heads – High Court awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for transportation, Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of amenities of life, and Rs.3,00,000/- for special diet considering prolonged treatment and vegetative condition [Paras 28–29].

Rate of Interest – Interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization upheld in view of Dara Singh and R. Valli [Para 30].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Total compensation enhanced from Rs.58,22,000/- to Rs.1,18,20,000/- – Enhanced amount of Rs.59,98,000/- payable with interest @ 9% per annum – Insurer directed to deposit amount within two months – Tribunal to disburse to claimants [Paras 29–32].

Criminal Law - Forgery of Will – Pendency of probate proceedings no bar to criminal prosecution – Magistrate justified in directing FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC – Quashing at threshold declined – Investigation to proceed.

Criminal Law – Forgery of Will – Parallel Probate Proceedings – Maintainability of FIR – Registered Will dated 29.04.2011 challenged as forged during pendency of probate proceedings – Magistrate directed registration of FIR under Sections 467/471 IPC on complaint supported by handwriting expert report – Held: Pendency of probate or civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution where allegations disclose ingredients of cognizable offences – Civil and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres [Paras 50–61, 66–67].

Section 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate’s Power – Scope and Limits – Magistrate required to examine whether allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence necessitating police investigation – Not mandatory to direct investigation in every complaint, but justified where allegations require collection of evidence beyond complainant’s reach – Order directing registration of FIR held proper [Paras 52, 65].

Quashing of FIR – Article 226 / Section 482 CrPC – Limited Jurisdiction – High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or evaluate probative value of expert opinion at threshold – FIR not an encyclopaedia and need not contain all evidence – Investigation must be allowed to proceed unless no offence is disclosed – Reliance on Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure principles [Paras 62–66].

Expert Evidence – Handwriting Expert – Evidentiary Value at FIR Stage – Opinion of handwriting expert only advisory and not conclusive – However, at stage of registration of FIR, conclusiveness of expert opinion not required – Challenge to reliability or time gap in specimen signatures a matter of trial and investigation, not quashing [Paras 15–16, 64–66].

Civil vs Criminal Liability – Distinct Standards of Proof – Probate proceedings determine validity of Will on preponderance of probabilities – Criminal prosecution requires proof of mens rea beyond reasonable doubt – Allegations of forgery and use of forged document constitute independent offences irrespective of outcome of probate case [Paras 60–61, 67].

Abuse of Process – Not Established – Allegations not shown to be mala fide or purely civil in nature at this stage – FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence – No exceptional circumstances warranting quashing made out [Paras 66–69].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – FIR No. 197/2024 under Sections 467/471 IPC not quashed – Criminal investigation permitted to proceed – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Will – Proof and Suspicious Circumstances – Burden on Propounder – Deceased owner Buddhsen admittedly left behind wife and children as natural heirs – Defendant No.1 claimed title on the basis of Will dated 18.09.1985 – When Will excludes wife and children and bequeaths entire property to a non-relative belonging to a different caste, strong suspicious circumstances arise – Burden lies heavily on propounder to dispel such suspicion – Failure to satisfactorily explain exclusion of natural heirs renders Will doubtful and unenforceable [Paras 11, 15–21].

Will – Attestation and Evidence – Interested and Unreliable Witnesses – Though formal attestation sought to be proved under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, evidence of attesting witnesses revealed inconsistencies and unnatural conduct – Witnesses closely connected with defendant and having doubtful credibility – Circumstances surrounding execution and alleged registration before Notary found improbable – Held: Mere formal proof insufficient when execution surrounded by grave suspicion [Paras 11–14, 19].

Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of Natural Heirs – Will executed in favour of wealthy and influential person depriving poor testator’s wife and children of sole property – Reasons stated in Will found fabricated and unnatural – Testator owning no other property – Date gap between execution and verification of Will unexplained – Held: Suspicious circumstances not removed by propounder [Paras 16–21].

Letter Relied upon by Propounder – Fabrication – Letter dated 13.12.1985 (Ex.D-1) relied upon to justify Will – Typed document allegedly written by poor testator – Contents appeared self-serving and prepared to support Will – Held: Letter unreliable and confers no benefit on defendant [Para 15].

Mutation and Sale Deed – Effect – Mutation obtained on basis of doubtful Will – Subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 based on invalid title – Held: Mutation order and sale deed are null and void being derivative of invalid Will [Paras 2, 24].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Possession – Plaintiffs established themselves as legal heirs of deceased owner – Will not proved beyond suspicion – Trial Court rightly decreed suit declaring Will, mutation and sale deed null and void and directing restoration of possession – No perversity or legal infirmity found [Paras 24–25].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court affirmed – Will dated 18.09.1985, mutation and sale deed declared null and void – Plaintiffs entitled to possession.

Tenancy Law - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act – Eviction – Reasonable Requirement – Second Appeal – Suit filed by landlords for recovery of possession on grounds of default, nuisance, damage and reasonable requirement – Trial Court dismissed suit holding lack of bona fide requirement and premises being unfit for habitation – First Appellate Court reversed decree and granted eviction on ground of reasonable requirement – Held: Appellate Court rightly appreciated evidence and need of landlord – No perversity or error of law warranting interference in second appeal [Paras 1–3, 10–11].

Landlord and Tenant – Reasonable and bona fide requirement – Scope and test – Reasonable requirement is a living and dynamic concept varying with time, family size and circumstances – Mere fact that landlord earlier lived in staircase room at time of letting does not negate future requirement – Court cannot compel landlord to continue to live in discomfort – Landlord is best judge of his own need – Held: Claim of landlords neither fanciful nor exaggerated [Paras 10–11].

Evidence – Advocate/Pleader Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary value – Reports indicating suit room not habitable and staircase room having low height – Such reports cannot dictate or construct landlord’s requirement – Commissioner’s report is only one piece of evidence and cannot override landlord’s bona fide need – Held: Appellate Court justified in not treating Commissioner’s report as determinative [Paras 9–11].

Alternative Accommodation – Suitability – Comparative hardship – Availability of other accommodation must be reasonably suitable in comparison with suit premises – Mere existence of other rooms or prior residence in another house does not defeat claim if such accommodation is unsuitable or no longer available – Sale of other house during pendency of suit taken into consideration – Held: Requirement remained reasonable and bona fide [Paras 9–11].

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Limits of jurisdiction – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence like a first appellate court – Interference justified only when findings are perverse or based on misapplication of law – Findings of First Appellate Court based on settled principles laid down by Supreme Court – Held: No substantial question of law survives for interference [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum affirmed – Appellants/tenants directed to hand over possession of suit premises within sixty days – Respondents/landlords at liberty to initiate execution on default – All pending applications disposed of.

POCSO Act – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Ingredients of Section 3 – Rubbing of Genitals – No Penetration – Conviction under Section 6 Set Aside – Prosecution evidence including FIR, Section 164 statement and testimony of victim and mother disclosed act of accused rubbing his body/penis against the child and attempting sexual act – No consistent or proved case of penile penetration into vagina as required under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 3 – Victim’s deposition in Court alleging penetration found to be an improvement over earlier statements – Held: Ingredients of penetrative sexual assault not established – Conviction under Sections 5(m)/6 unsustainable [Paras 33–35].

Sexual Assault on Child below 12 Years – Section 9(m) POCSO – Aggravated Sexual Assault Established – Victim aged about 9 years – Accused misused position of trust as a doctor – Evidence clearly proved sexual assault falling within Section 7 – Since victim below 12 years, offence squarely covered under Section 9(m) punishable under Section 10 – Conviction modified accordingly [Paras 37–38].

Medical Evidence – Proof of MLC – Examining Doctor Unavailable – Admissibility under Evidence Act – Doctor who examined victim not available and whereabouts unknown – MLC proved through another doctor acquainted with handwriting and signature – Held: MLC admissible under Section 32(2) read with Sections 47 and 67 of Evidence Act – Non-examination of original doctor not fatal to prosecution [Paras 16–21].

Contradictions and Omissions – Section 161 and 164 CrPC Statements – Mode of Proof – Alleged contradictions between testimony and prior statements – Defence failed to prove contradictions in manner prescribed under Section 145 Evidence Act read with Section 162 CrPC – Mere marking of confrontations insufficient – Held: Defence cannot derive benefit of unproved contradictions [Paras 27–32].

Forensic Evidence – Semen Stains – Limited Corroborative Value – FSL report showed semen stains on underwear – However, ocular evidence suggested assault was interrupted before completion – Absence of consistent prosecution case of ejaculation – FSL evidence not sufficient to elevate offence to penetrative sexual assault [Paras 36–37].

Sentencing – Modification – Principles Applied – Maximum punishment under Section 10 POCSO is seven years – Considering gravity of offence, age of victim, breach of trust by accused, sentence reduced from ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment – Sentence under Section 342 IPC affirmed – Sentences to run concurrently [Paras 38–40].

Victim Compensation – Direction for Disbursement – Compensation awarded by trial court not disbursed – Delhi State Legal Services Authority directed to release compensation within stipulated time [Para 39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 6 POCSO set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO – Sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment for seven years – Conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC confirmed – Compensation to victim directed to be disbursed expeditiously.

Tort Law – Electrocution – Death due to high-voltage transmission line – Compensation – Deceased TV cable operator died due to electric shock while repairing cable on rooftop – Trial Court dismissed suit on conjecture that 132 KV line could not cause such death – First Appellate Court reversed findings and decreed suit – Held: Death due to electrocution proved by ocular and medical evidence – Trial Court’s reasoning based on assumptions unsustainable [Paras 2–4, 7–8].

Electricity Law – High-voltage transmission lines – Statutory and non-delegable duty – Electricity supplier under obligation to maintain safe clearances and remove obstructions – Evidence showed tree touching/dangerously close to 132 KV line creating lethal induction zone – Breach of statutory duty established [Paras 8–10].

Strict Liability – Hazardous activity – Transmission of electricity – Electricity inherently dangerous commodity – Once death due to electrocution established, liability of electricity authority arises irrespective of negligence – Burden on authority to show absence of liability – Failure to discharge burden – Reliance placed on M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari [Paras 10–11].

Contributory Negligence – Plea rejected – Victim engaged in lawful occupation on rooftop – Cannot be expected to foresee induction hazard from negligently maintained transmission line – Duty of safety rests on electricity authority and cannot be shifted to victim [Para 12].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness testimony – Departmental records – Eye-witness corroborated by medical evidence and site plan – Defence of no tripping on line disbelieved due to discrepancies and overwriting in departmental records – Absence of tripping not determinative where induction possible [Paras 8–9].

Compensation – Assessment – Multiplier method – First Appellate Court applied principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC and Pranay Sethi – Notional income, future prospects and conventional heads correctly assessed – Quantum neither excessive nor arbitrary [Para 13].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No substantial question of law – Findings of First Appellate Court based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled law – High Court not justified in interfering with concurrent and reasoned findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani affirmed – No order as to costs.

Customs – Appeal to High Court – Section 130 Customs Act – Scope – Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Concurrent findings of fact by Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT regarding Fe content of Iron Ore Fines exported – Questions raised by Revenue essentially factual in nature – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 8.8–10, 11–12].

Export Duty – Iron Ore Fines – Determination of Fe Content – WMT vs DMT – Prior to Finance Act, 2022 – For exports made before 01.05.2022, Fe content for levy of export duty to be determined on Wet Metric Tonne basis including moisture – Reliance placed on Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (SC) and consistent CESTAT decisions – Held: Assessment on WMT basis is correct and in accordance with settled law [Paras 7.1–8.7, 9–9.6].

Evidence – Test Reports – CRCL vs NABL Accredited Private Laboratory – Load Port Test Report – Transaction Value – Final invoice and Bank Realisation Certificate issued on basis of NABL Accredited Laboratory (SKM) test reports – Payments received accordingly – CRCL report based on delayed testing and DMT basis – Held: No perversity in preferring contemporaneous load port test report for determining Fe content and valuation [Paras 7.2–7.9, 9.1–9.2].

Customs Valuation – Section 14 Customs Act – Transaction Value – Value of export goods to be price actually paid or payable as per contract between exporter and foreign buyer – Customs authorities cannot alter contractual basis of valuation when no doubt exists regarding transaction value – Held: Load port test report forming basis of transaction value must prevail [Paras 7.5–7.9, 9.2].

CBIC Circulars – Interpretation – Circular No.12/2014-Cus and Circular No.04/2012-Cus – Circulars clarify assessment on WMT basis for export duty on Iron Ore Fines – Tribunal correctly applied circulars consistent with judicial precedents – No legal error demonstrated [Paras 8.7, 9.2].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Coordinate Bench Decisions – CESTAT followed consistent line of decisions on WMT basis and valuation – High Court declined to re-appreciate evidence or reopen settled position of law – Held: Judicial discipline mandates uniformity [Paras 8.8–8.11, 9.6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – CESTAT order dated 04.12.2024 upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 12–12.3].