Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction Compounded – Petitioner convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque amounting to ₹2,48,000/- – Trial Court sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and compensation of ₹2,48,000/-, affirmed by the Sessions Judge on appeal – High Court allowed compounding of the offence based on a compromise deed entered between the petitioner and the complainant – Held: Offence compounded as per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 – Petitioner acquitted, and conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 10-14].

Compounding Fee – Reduction in Special Circumstances – Graded scheme for compounding fee under Damodar S. Prabhu provides for 15% of the cheque amount to be imposed when compounding is sought at the appellate or revisional stage – However, High Court reduced the fee to ₹5,000/- considering the petitioner’s financial condition and other facts – Held: Reduction in compounding fee allowed under discretionary powers of the Court [Paras 16-17].

Judgment of Acquittal – Release from Custody – Petitioner undergoing sentence in Model Central Jail, Kanda – High Court directed immediate release of the petitioner upon quashing of conviction and sentence, subject to the absence of any other pending case – Held: Petitioner to be released forthwith [Para 18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act set aside – Offence compounded, and petitioner acquitted – Token compounding fee of ₹5,000/- to be deposited with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority within four weeks – Release of petitioner ordered [Paras 14, 17-18].
 

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicle Act – Limitation Period – Applicability of Section 166(3) – Delay Condoned – The petitioner insurance company challenged the Tribunal's order condoning a delay of 9 days in filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was argued that Section 166(3), as amended in 2019, imposed a strict limitation period of six months for filing claims, and the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, were inapplicable. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the Limitation Act applied to relax the statutory limitation period in the absence of explicit exclusion under Section 166(3). – Held: Delay condonation was valid, and the petition was dismissed [Paras 7, 35-37].

Police and Insurance Company’s Duty – Procedural Obligations under Sections 149 and 159 – Compliance Mandated – The Court emphasized the statutory obligations of police officers and insurance companies to promptly file accident information reports (AIR), interim accident reports (IAR), and detailed accident reports (DAR) under Sections 149 and 159 of the Motor Vehicle Act. These reports are intended to facilitate swift adjudication of claims and reduce procedural delays, underscoring the benevolent nature of the legislation. – Held: Procedural compliance by police and insurers is mandatory [Paras 14, 15, 30-33].

Relief under Section 166(4) – Claims Tribunals’ Role – Automatic Treatment of Reports as Claim Applications – The Court clarified that under Section 166(4), any report forwarded under Section 159 must be treated as a claim application, thereby safeguarding victims’ rights irrespective of the limitation under Section 166(3). – Held: Claims Tribunal must process reports as applications for compensation [Paras 19, 34].

Children and Legal Disability – Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act – Extended Timelines – In cases involving minor claimants, as in the present matter, the Court held that Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act extended the timeline for filing claims until the disability ceased, further reinforcing the victim-centric approach of the Motor Vehicle Act. – Held: Minors’ legal disability allowed extension of time for filing claims [Para 38].

Legislative Intent – Harmonization of Amended Provisions – Liberal Interpretation Favoured – Observing that the Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent statute, the Court harmonized the amended provisions, highlighting the legislature's intent to ensure expeditious compensation while balancing procedural fairness. Strict interpretation of limitation periods would undermine this objective. – Held: Liberal interpretation of the Act upheld the right to compensation [Paras 33, 34].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Burden of Proof – Section 114(i) of Evidence Act – Plaintiff’s Suit Dismissed – The plaintiff sought specific performance of an unregistered sale agreement, asserting that the entire consideration was paid, and possession handed over. Defendants claimed refund of consideration and cancellation of the agreement – Held: The First Appellate Court rightly relied on Section 114(i) of the Indian Evidence Act to presume that possession of the original documents by the defendants indicated a refund – Plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption [Paras 14-16].

Conduct of Parties – Principle of Equity – Specific Relief Act – The conduct of the plaintiff, including delay in filing the suit and failure to explain possession of original documents by defendants, negates his claim – Equity under Specific Relief Act bars relief when the plaintiff’s conduct raises doubts [Paras 15, 18].

Bar under Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act – Effect of Unregistered Sale Agreement – Post-amendment, Section 53-A bars relief of injunction based on unregistered agreements if possession is claimed under such documents – Plaintiff failed to prove possession and is not entitled to an injunction under Specific Relief Act [Paras 17].

Non-Compliance with Order XLI Rule 31, CPC – Allegation Dismissed – First Appellate Court complied with Order XLI Rule 31 by framing points for consideration and providing reasons for reversing the Trial Court’s judgment – Judgment upheld [Paras 18].

Limitation Act – Article 54 – Suit Timely Filed – While the suit was filed within three years from the refusal of execution of the sale deed, other factors, including plaintiff’s failure to prove readiness and willingness, precluded relief [Paras 10.1, 15].

Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the First Appellate Court is upheld, and the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance and injunction is dismissed. No costs are imposed.

Appeal Dismissed. CMP Closed.
 

Civil Law - Land Ownership and Possession – Permanent Injunction – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Plaintiffs purchased the suit lands under registered sale deeds and sought a permanent injunction against interference by the Government – Defendants claimed the lands were assigned to others under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act and resumed by the Government – Held: Plaintiffs established continuous possession through documentary evidence; Government failed to prove that lands were assigned or resumed as claimed – Permanent injunction upheld [Paras 17-22].

Assigned Lands – Rule 3 Notice – Mandatory Requirement – Defendants failed to serve Rule 3 notice under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act before claiming possession – Tahsildar admitted that no notice was served, and assignment records were unavailable – Held: Without mandatory Rule 3 notice, defendants’ claim over the lands is unsustainable [Paras 20-21].

Government Land Claims – Lack of Evidence – Defendants relied on Ex.B1 (RSR) and Ex.B3 (Subdivision Record) to prove assignment – Records were incomplete, with corrections and overwriting – Held: Defendants failed to substantiate claims of assignment or resumption with credible evidence; Ex.B3 lacked probative value [Paras 19-20].

Suit for Injunction – Title Not Essential – Plaintiffs sought only permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title – Held: Relief of permanent injunction can be granted if possession is established, even without declaration of title, provided the plaintiff’s case is unchallenged [Paras 21-22].

Appellate Review – Limited Scope in Second Appeal – High Court reiterated the limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: Concurrent findings of lower courts supported by evidence cannot be disturbed in the absence of perversity or misapplication of law [Paras 16, 21-22].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of trial and appellate courts affirmed – No costs imposed [Para 22].

Partition Suit – Exclusive Ownership Claims – Contribution to Construction – Equal Shares Upheld – The appellants claimed exclusive ownership of the first and second floors of the suit property, alleging sole funding for their construction – Held: No documentary evidence substantiating exclusive ownership produced – Contributions by a co-sharer do not confer exclusive title unless proven by consent or separate agreement – Preliminary decree declaring equal shares affirmed [Paras 15-19].

Joint Property – Sanctioned Plan as Evidence – Co-sharers Entitled Jointly – Both parties consented to the G+2 sanctioned plan; additional constructions deemed part of the joint property – Adjustments for contributions can be made during the final decree stage [Paras 16-18].

Final Decree Stage – Contributions and Possession Claims – Adjustments Allowed – Parties permitted to establish claims for contributions and possession for owelty money allocation during final decree proceedings [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed; judgment and preliminary decree of the trial court affirmed – Trial court directed to expedite disposal of the case at the final decree stage with cooperation from all parties [Paras 20-23].
 

Employment Law – Departmental Inquiry – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner alleged violations of natural justice in a disciplinary inquiry leading to his dismissal for alleged financial irregularities – Documents required for defense were not furnished, and the inquiry was conducted without adequate opportunity to respond – Held: Absence of required documents did not demonstrably prejudice the petitioner’s case – Allegations of procedural violations during the inquiry were rejected [Paras 8–12].

Acquittal in Criminal Case – Impact on Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 636 of 2012, with no appeal filed against the judgment – Petitioner sought reconsideration of dismissal in light of acquittal – Held: Disciplinary proceedings and criminal cases operate independently, but the acquittal warranted reconsideration of the dismissal order – Respondents directed to review the dismissal order based on the criminal court’s judgment [Paras 11, 13].

Delay in Filing Appeal – Doctrine of Delay and Laches – Appeal against the dismissal order was filed five years late, citing ill health and unemployment – Held: Delay, though unsupported by documentary evidence, was not entirely unreasonable given the petitioner’s circumstances – The delay was excused to ensure substantive justice [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to review the dismissal order in light of the criminal court’s acquittal judgment and to issue appropriate orders within three months – No costs awarded [Paras 13–14].

Civil Writ - Legal Profession – Enrollment Fees – Validity of Charges for Verification – Supreme Court Directions Binding – Appellant challenged the collection of verification fees for enrollment certificates, relying on a Supreme Court order mandating that universities and boards verify such certificates without fees – Held: Bar Council cannot levy fees for verification beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 – Supreme Court directions prevail over contrary administrative notices – Fees collection invalid [Paras 3–6].

Procedural Law – Verification of Educational Certificates – Responsibility of State Bar Councils – Bar Councils are responsible for verifying educational certificates directly with the concerned universities and boards – Any procedural lapses or delays should not prejudice the applicant – Held: Certificates must be verified without charging fees, and enrollment cannot be delayed due to incomplete verification if the applicant meets other requirements [Paras 7–10].

Interim Relief – Conditional Enrollment Allowed – Court directed the Bar Council of Kerala to process the appellant's enrollment application immediately, without requiring verification fees, and to permit conditional enrollment pending completion of certificate verification – Held: Enrollment subject to cancellation if certificates are later found inauthentic [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Interim order modified – Enrollment application to be processed without charging verification fees – Conditional enrollment granted pending certificate verification [Paras 8–10].
 

Bail Petition – Change in Circumstances – Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances Justified – The petitioner, previously denied bail, filed a subsequent petition based on new evidence where the victim and her mother claimed she was major at the time of the incident, and the relationship was consensual – Held: New statements of the victim and her mother, prima facie, render the prosecution's claim of minority doubtful, especially as no school certificate was produced to verify the victim's age – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 17-19].

Age Determination – Preference for School Certificate – Under POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act – Where a victim's age is disputed, a school certificate is preferred over a Gram Panchayat certificate – Observed: In the absence of a school certificate, the Gram Panchayat's record loses significance when the victim claims she was major at the time of the incident [Para 17].

Parameters for Granting Bail – Consideration of Supreme Court Guidelines – Successive bail applications can be considered only with substantial changes in circumstances – Held: New evidence brought by the petitioner justified reconsideration – No reasonable ground to believe petitioner’s involvement under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act – Petitioner’s continued detention unjustified [Paras 7-19].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguarding Trial Integrity – Conditions imposed to prevent intimidation of witnesses, ensure attendance at trial, and restrict movement without informing authorities – Failure to comply may lead to bail cancellation [Paras 19-20].
 

Civil Law - Eviction and Redevelopment – Consent of Members – Definition of "Building" – Petition challenging redevelopment of Nidhi Apartment dismissed – Petitioners objected to redevelopment on the grounds of lack of requisite consent (75%) for Block No. 1 and absence of development permission – Held: Definition of "building" under Section 60A of Gujarat Housing Board (Amendment) Act, 2019 applies to the entire property, not individual blocks – Consent of 93% of members satisfies statutory requirements – Redevelopment validly initiated [Paras 14–18].

Development Permission – Vacating Premises – Petitioners argued that premises could not be vacated before obtaining development permission from AMC – Court found this claim baseless, stating that Clause 8 of the tripartite agreement requires members to vacate premises within 30 days of signing the agreement, not after development permission – Petitioners’ refusal to vacate premises unjustified [Paras 20–24].

Common Utility Areas – Ownership Rights – Petitioners contended that common utility areas (e.g., toilets) should be distributed pro-rata – Court rejected this argument, observing that such areas were not transferred under lease agreements and remain common property under Gujarat Housing Board ownership – Claim deemed an attempt to delay redevelopment [Para 25].

Suppression of Facts – Civil Suit – Petitioners failed to disclose dismissal of Civil Suit No. 777 of 2024 challenging the tripartite agreement – Court criticized the petitioners for their obstructive conduct and frivolous litigation – Held: Public interest in redevelopment outweighs the private interests of petitioners [Paras 10–12, 27–29].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Eviction and redevelopment orders upheld – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on petitioners to discourage frivolous objections – Amount to be deposited with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority [Paras 30–30.1].