Benami Transactions – Prohibition – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Suit for declaration of ownership of property purchased in another's name, alleging fiduciary relationship – Application for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Held, legislature prohibited benami transactions, except in specified cases under Section 4(3) of the 1988 Act – Court to consider only plaint averments for Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaint shows post-1988 transactions seeking ownership declaration – Suit barred by 1988 Act – Order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC set aside – Plaint rejected. [Paras 7, 14]

Fiduciary Relationship – Section 4(3) of Benami Act – Exception to prohibition on benami transactions includes cases where property held in fiduciary capacity – Respondent's plea based on fiduciary relationship not substantiated – All sale deeds post-1988 fall under prohibition of Benami Act. [Paras 13, 14]

Decision – Revision petitions allowed – Impugned order set aside – Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint rejected. [Paras 14, 15]

Property Law – Auction Purchase – Free from Encumbrances – Petitioner purchased property in e-auction from bank with assurance of no encumbrances – Sale certificate issued, but registration refused due to property attachment for previous owner's dues – Held, rights of secured creditor have priority over government dues – Petitioner under no obligation to discharge previous owner's liabilities – Writ allowed, registration directed. [Paras 1, 8, 9, 13]

Secured Creditors’ Priority – Section 31-B of Securitisation Act – Secured creditors’ rights to recover debts have priority over government dues – Government dues do not have precedence over secured creditors’ recoverable dues. [Paras 8, 9]

Legal Precedent – Auction Purchaser’s Liability – Supreme Court rulings confirm auction purchaser not liable for previous owner's dues unless entire business unit purchased – Petitioner’s purchase in e-auction thus free from previous liabilities. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Petition allowed – Respondent No.2 directed to register sale deed in petitioner’s favor – Petitioner not liable for previous owner's dues. [Para 14]

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Lack of Motive – Appellants convicted for murder based on circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession – Prosecution failed to prove animosity between accused and deceased – No motive established – Motive plays crucial role in circumstantial evidence cases – Conviction based on weak motive unsustainable – Appeal allowed. [Paras 1, 24, 25, 26, 27]

Criminal Law – Extra Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Appellants allegedly confessed to PW-2, who had no authority – Extra judicial confession considered weak evidence – Prosecution witnesses did not inform police immediately after confession but searched for body instead – Conduct of witnesses deemed unusual and unnatural – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 1, 2, 25, 26]

Criminal Law – Natural Human Conduct – Witnesses’ Conduct – Witnesses' failure to inform police immediately questioned – Unusual and unnatural conduct of witnesses weakens prosecution case – Statements of prosecution witnesses not reliable. [Paras 24, 26, 27, 28]

Decision – Appeals allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 30.04.2005 set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds and surety bonds discharged. [Paras 32, 33]

Labour Law – Reinstatement vs. Compensation – Non-compliance with Section 25-F – Labour Court found termination invalid due to non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act but denied reinstatement, awarding Rs. 1,20,000 as compensation – Held, compensation inadequate for 10 years of service – Following principles in similar cases, compensation increased – Petitioner entitled to reinstatement with continuity and Rs. 3 lakhs compensation. [Paras 2, 6, 13]

Labour Law – Void Termination – Void ab initio due to lack of compliance with Section 25-F – Court reiterates that non-compliance renders termination void, leading to continuity in service and reinstatement. [Paras 7, 12]

Constitutional Law – Articles 226 and 227 – Writ Jurisdiction – High Court's power to correct errors in Labour Court awards – Held, Labour Court's decision lacking adequate reasoning and failing to consider recent judgments – High Court intervenes to ensure just and reasonable relief. [Paras 9, 10]

Decision – Petition allowed – Labour Court's award modified – Petitioner reinstated with continuity in service and Rs. 3 lakhs compensation for illegal termination. [Para 13]

Insurance Law – Personal Accident Cover – Definition of Owner-Driver – Borrower of Vehicle – Tribunal awarded PAC compensation to borrower of a motorcycle – Held, term ‘owner-driver’ under GR-36 restricts PAC to the registered owner holding an effective driving license – Representative or borrower not covered – Tribunal’s award set aside, claimants entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Act. [Paras 13-16]

Motor Vehicles Law – No-Fault Liability – Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Claimants entitled to Rs. 50,000 for no-fault liability as the borrower of the vehicle is not covered under PAC – Tribunal’s award modified accordingly. [Para 16]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Tribunal's award of Rs. 1,00,000 under PAC set aside – Claimants entitled to Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 of the Act with interest as awarded by the Tribunal – Respondents may revive the appeal if aggrieved. [Paras 17-19]

Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (13) SCC 710

Representing Advocates:

Vinod Chaudhri for the appellant

Contract Law – Liability of Surety – Delay by Creditor – Public Auction – Petitioner stood as surety for contractor in a public auction – Contractor defaulted on payments – Petitioner argued that delay by State in taking action discharged the surety – Held, State's delay does not discharge surety's liability – Contract terms and provisions of Section 128 make liability of surety co-extensive with that of principal debtor – Petitioner's liability upheld. [Paras 12-13, 20]

Contract Law – Surety’s Liability – Sections 128, 133, 135, 139, 141, 145 of the Indian Contract Act – Surety argued changes in contract terms and delay in action by State discharged his liability – Held, no changes in contract terms made without surety’s consent – Delay in termination of contract does not alter original terms – Surety's liability remains intact. [Paras 12-15, 18]

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Petitioner’s arguments rejected – Liability of surety upheld – Appeals dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 each. [Paras 23-24]

Constitutional Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Pay Parity – Petitioners recruited as drivers receiving lower pay than juniors despite performing the same work – State's contention to await 6th Pay Commission decision rejected – Held, seniors cannot draw less pay than juniors, violation of Article 14 and Article 39(d) – Step-up of salary of seniors directed. [Paras 1, 5, 7]

Administrative Law – Stepping Up of Pay – Petitioners drawing less pay than juniors due to ACP scheme – Supreme Court’s principle of stepping up pay in similar cases applied – Held, stepping up pay is the only way to prevent discrimination and uphold the principle of equal pay for equal work – Any provision allowing such anomaly is violative of natural justice and equity. [Paras 5, 6]

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioners entitled to stepping up of pay on par with juniors from the date juniors received higher pay – Arrears to be disbursed within a reasonable time – Petitioner No. 2's case to be processed after expiry of punishment in July 2016. [Paras 8-10]

Information Technology Act, 2000 - Exemption from Liability - Intermediary Role - Held, Facebook India Ltd. is an intermediary and does not control or operate servers hosting content. No allegations of conspiracy or inducement against it. Exempt from liability under Section 79 of the IT Act. Not a necessary party to the suit.

Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 52(1)(c) Compliance - Pre-suit Notice Requirement - Held, no suit can be filed without serving a 21-day notice to the person responsible for storage of infringing content. No such notice was issued to Facebook India Ltd. by the plaintiff. Suit not maintainable against it.

Decision - Revision Petition Allowed - Court deleted Facebook India Ltd. from the array of parties, noting its role as an intermediary and the lack of mandatory notice as required under the Copyright Act and Rules.