Civil Law – Decree Against Dead Person – Nullity – Plaintiff obtained ex parte decree dated 31.5.2022 declaring ownership by adverse possession against Sushila Mehra who had died on 02.04.1996 – Suit instituted and decreed against a dead person – Applying ratio of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade and Ashok Transport Agency – Held: Decree passed against a dead person is a nullity and confers no right, title or interest – Such nullity can be set up whenever and wherever decree is sought to be enforced – Trial court erred in treating earlier decree as binding and executable [Paras 38, 43].

Mutation and Payment of House Tax – No Conferment of Title – Plaintiff relied upon house tax receipts and acceptance of tax by Nagar Nigam – Disputed property recorded as “Muraga Khana” in municipal records – Held: Mutation entries and payment of municipal taxes are only for fiscal purposes and do not create or extinguish title – Ownership must be independently proved – Mere acceptance of tax does not validate claim of ownership [Paras 39-41, 29-31].

Adverse Possession – Tenant Claiming Ownership – Impermissibility – Plaintiff admitted that his father entered property as tenant/licensee under Sushila Mehra in 1969 and rent was paid till 1996 – Held: Possession of tenant is permissive and cannot be converted into adverse possession against landlord unless clear hostile assertion and surrender of tenancy proved – Tenant cannot deny title of landlord – Trial court erred in declaring ownership on basis of adverse possession in earlier suit [Paras 32, 42, 28].

Evidence – Death Certificate – Rejection on Hyper-Technical Ground – Defendants produced copy of death certificate and documents from Delhi High Court proceedings showing death of Sushila Mehra in 1996 – Trial court rejected death certificate as photocopy – Held: Death and birth certificates are ordinarily produced in certified copies – No conceivable benefit to Nagar Nigam in fabricating such certificate – Rejection of document was perverse and unjustified – Trial court ignored material evidence [Paras 35-37, 44].

Mandatory Injunction – Reliance on Void Decree – Plaintiff sought direction to enter his name in property register on strength of void ex parte decree – Held: Since foundational decree was a nullity, no consequential relief could be granted – Trial court acted in total disregard of settled legal principles – Impugned decree unsustainable [Paras 34, 43].

Judicial Conduct – Observations – High Court found reasoning of trial court shocking and perverse – Directed placement of matter before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the concerned trial Judge [Paras 44, 47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 13.05.2025 passed in O.S. No. 960 of 2024 set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed with costs throughout – Matter directed to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the concerned Trial Judge.

Civil Law - Eviction – Reasonable Requirement – Anticipated Retirement – Landlord sought eviction for own use for business upon husband’s impending retirement – Contention that future requirement is no requirement – Held: Requirement certain to arise in reasonably foreseeable future satisfies test of reasonable requirement – Claim neither fanciful nor exaggerated – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras relating to Q. XIV, discussion on Mono Ranjan Dasgupta].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found reasonable requirement and valid service of notice – No perversity or error of law demonstrated – Held: Concurrent findings demand no interference in second appeal [Final paragraphs before dismissal].

Notice to Quit – Service by Registered Post – Postal endorsement “Not Claimed” – No plea of absence or shifting from premises – Held: Endorsement “not claimed” amounts to valid service when notice properly addressed and tendered – Presumption of service sustainable – Tenancy validly determined [Discussion referring to Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand; Subhas C. Mitra].

Death of One of Legal Heirs of Tenant – Joint Tenancy – Decree against Dead Person – All legal heirs of original tenant were impleaded – On death of widow, other joint tenants remained on record – Held: Tenancy devolves as joint tenancy – Decree against one joint tenant binds all – Suit does not abate – Decree not a nullity [Discussion under Additional Substantial Questions XVII & XVIII; reliance on Suresh Kumar Kohli].

Order XXII CPC – Abatement – Where other legal heirs of deceased tenant already on record, non-substitution of one heir does not vitiate decree – Joint decree permissible – No error by First Appellate Court in rejecting plea [Relevant discussion on applicability of Order XXII Rule 7 CPC].

Relief – Delivery of Possession – Appellants directed to vacate within 60 days from drawing up of appellate decree – In default execution permissible – Liberty granted to Respondent to claim mesne profits in separate suit.

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court as affirmed by First Appellate Court upheld – Appellants directed to deliver possession within sixty days – Liberty to Respondent to initiate execution and to institute separate suit for mesne profits – All connected applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Dacoity with Murder – Section 396 IPC – Appellants convicted for committing dacoity at house of Pohap Singh during intervening night – One Summera died due to firearm injuries and nine persons sustained injuries – FIR promptly lodged naming five appellants and one Kunji along with six unknown persons – Trial Court convicted appellants – High Court on reappraisal found prosecution story improbable and identification doubtful – Conviction set aside [Paras 22, 30-32, 44-45].

Identification – Visibility in Electric Light – Prosecution case that accused committed dacoity in electric light without covering faces – Accused known to witnesses and one appellant resident of same village – Court held it unnatural and against human conduct that known dacoits would commit crime openly without concealing identity – No evidence produced from electricity department to prove availability of power supply at 2:00 a.m. – Identification unsafe to rely upon [Paras 31-33, 35, 43].

Enmity – Double-Edged Weapon – Motive alleged that appellant Hardayal bore grudge as Pohap Singh had helped Deepa after Hardayal eloped with his wife – Will executed and cancelled by Hardayal in favour of informant’s son – Held: Enmity can be motive for crime as well as false implication – In present case, prior animosity raised serious doubt regarding false implication [Paras 38-40].

Recovery – Non-Recovery of Looted Property – Despite prompt FIR and raids conducted, no looted ornaments, cash or valuables recovered from appellants – No incriminating material seized – Failure to connect accused with stolen property weakens prosecution case in dacoity [Paras 22, 30, 33].

Withholding of Material Witness – Non-Examination of Pohap Singh – Dacoity allegedly committed at his house – Prosecution failed to examine him without explanation – Adverse inference drawn – Prosecution version rendered doubtful [Para 41].

Appreciation of Evidence – Inherent Improbabilities – Courts must assess probabilities and intrinsic circumstances – Story that accused committed dacoity in electric light without covering faces and without recovery of stolen property held improbable – Prosecution version found artificial and fabricated – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 32, 36-38, 42, 44].

Abatement – Appeal against one appellant Hardayal already abated due to death – Remaining appellants entitled to acquittal – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 BNSS) [Paras 46-47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 396 IPC set aside – Appellants Amar Singh, Prakash @ Om Prakash, Bahori and Biri Singh acquitted – Hardayal’s appeal abated – Bail bonds cancelled subject to compliance under Section 481 BNSS.

Civil Procedure – Restoration of Appeal – Dismissal for Default – Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of plaintiff and counsel – Application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC filed by advocate along with affidavit – Delay of 90 days sought to be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Lower appellate Court dismissed applications holding advocate cannot file sworn affidavit on behalf of party – Held: Advocate holding vakalatnama is competent to file affidavit in matters within his knowledge and to present restoration petition – Impugned orders set aside – Appeal directed to be restored and disposed of on merits [Paras 9-12].

Advocate’s Authority – Scope of Vakalatnama – Order III Rule 1 CPC – Advocate duly authorized by vakalatnama can make appearance, application or act on behalf of client – No absolute prohibition on advocate filing affidavit in support of application when facts are within his knowledge – Advocate assumes role of witness and may be subjected to cross-examination if necessary – Practice of rejecting petitions solely on ground that affidavit filed by counsel is unsustainable [Paras 10-12].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Section 5 Limitation Act – Petition for restoration filed with delay of 90 days – Dismissal of delay petition solely on ground of affidavit filed by counsel held erroneous – Courts should adopt liberal approach where dismissal occurred due to counsel’s default and party should not suffer for fault of agent – Delay condonation and restoration petitions held maintainable [Paras 6, 10-12].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance on earlier decisions of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Courts – Ratio in T. Krishnaswamy v. Maniyamma and other decisions clarifies competence of advocate to file affidavit – Contrary reliance on Premier Chemical Industries case distinguished – Lower Court failed to properly appreciate settled legal position [Paras 10-11].

Decision: C.M.A. No.466 of 2019 and C.R.P. No.1932 of 2019 allowed – Orders dated 02.04.2019 in I.A. Nos.736 and 737 of 2017 in A.S. No.35 of 2017 set aside – Lower appellate Court directed to restore appeal and dispose of same on merits expeditiously – Petitioner directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Bail – UA(P) Act – Long Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellant/9th accused charged under IPC, UA(P) Act, Arms Act and NDPS Act for alleged conspiracy to revive LTTE, trafficking of 300.323 kg heroin and prohibited arms for raising funds and waging war – In custody from 05.10.2021 – Trial not commenced – 209 witnesses and 446 documents cited – Trial likely to commence only in January 2027 and conclude by December 2027 – Held: Prolonged incarceration of more than four years and absence of likelihood of early trial entitle accused to bail notwithstanding statutory embargo under Section 43-D(5) UA(P) Act – Constitutional right under Article 21 prevails [Paras 8–11].

Statutory Bar under Section 43-D(5) & 43-D(7) UA(P) Act – Scope – Prosecution contended that accusations are prima facie true and that appellant being a foreign national who entered India illegally is barred from bail – Held: Presence of statutory restrictions does not oust power of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on ground of violation of fundamental right to speedy trial – With passage of time rigours of Section 43-D(5) and 43-D(7) dilute where trial is unlikely to conclude within reasonable time – Article 21 applies to all persons including non-citizens [Paras 8, 10, 12].

Pre-trial Detention – Proportionality – Courts’ Duty – Apex Court precedents reiterating that gravity of offence cannot justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration – More stringent the provision, quicker the adjudication must be – Where State unable to ensure speedy trial, it cannot oppose bail solely on seriousness of allegations – Constitutional courts obligated to intervene when custody becomes excessive and disproportionate [Paras 8–11].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards – Appellant directed to execute bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties – Mandatory conditions imposed including surrender of passport, restriction on leaving Kerala without permission, reporting before SHO on first and third Saturdays, furnishing residential address and mobile number, prohibition on tampering with evidence or engaging in similar activities – Liberty granted to prosecution to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Order dated 22.04.2024 in Crl.MP No.70/2024 set aside – Appellant/9th accused granted bail subject to stringent conditions – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation in case of violation.

Customs – Duty Drawback – SEZ Unit – Reversal of ITC – Consequential Order – Earlier Order-in-Appeal dated 30.09.2023 allowed drawback @15.61% subject to reversal/adjustment of ITC – Department accepted said order and did not prefer further appeal – Assistant Commissioner passed Order-in-Original dated 24.01.2024 granting drawback after adjusting ITC and interest – Commissioner (Appeals) in subsequent appeal set aside said consequential order holding assessee not eligible for drawback due to availment of ITC – Held: Commissioner (Appeals) could not revisit or nullify findings in earlier Order-in-Appeal which had attained finality – Action amounts to impermissible review – Doctrine of functus officio attracted – Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.09.2025 set aside [Paras 6, 6.6, 6.12, 6.26, 7].

Doctrine of Functus Officio – Finality of Appellate Orders – Once Order-in-Appeal dated 30.09.2023 was accepted by Department and not challenged before higher forum, findings therein attained finality inter se parties – Commissioner (Appeals) became functus officio in respect of issues decided – In absence of statutory power of review under Customs Act, reopening issue in appeal against consequential order impermissible – Quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order in garb of deciding subsequent appeal – Judicial discipline mandates implementation of earlier appellate order in letter and spirit [Paras 6.1–6.4, 6.21–6.22].

Res Judicata – Issue Estoppel – Application in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings – Though strict provisions of Section 11 CPC not applicable to tax proceedings, principles of issue estoppel and finality apply – Once entitlement to drawback subject to ITC reversal adjudicated and accepted, same issue cannot be reagitated in subsequent stage of same proceedings – Reopening settled issue amounts to review and violates principles of public policy and certainty in litigation [Paras 6.13–6.15, 6.20].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Appellate Orders – Subordinate authorities bound to follow unchallenged appellate orders – Mere disagreement with earlier decision or reliance on circulars cannot justify departure unless order is stayed or set aside by competent forum – Failure to adhere results in administrative chaos and harassment – Reliance placed on settled law of Supreme Court [Paras 6.22, 6.24].

Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction – Consequential Orders – Appeal against Order-in-Original passed to give effect to prior appellate decision cannot be used as mechanism to unsettle or override earlier binding findings – Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by effectively sitting in review over Order-in-Appeal dated 30.09.2023 – Such course not sanctioned under Customs Act [Paras 6.6, 6.19, 6.21].

Relief – Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.09.2025 (issued on 08.10.2025) set aside – Matter remitted to Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar to consider merits of respective appeals without reopening findings already attained finality – Writ petition allowed to said extent – No order as to costs [Paras 7, 7.1, 8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Order-in-Appeal dated 30.09.2025 set aside – Matter remitted to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration in accordance with law and observations made – No costs.

Essential Commodities Act – Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) – Unauthorised storage of HSD Oil, Kerosene and Fertilizers – Seizure during inspection – Failure to produce licence, documents or stock registers – Prosecution proved seizure and non-compliance with Control Orders – Held: Conviction justified on evidence and statutory presumptions under Sections 10C and 14 EC Act – No interference with findings of guilt [Paras 6-9, 11-12].

Search and Seizure – Challenge to authority under Kerosene Control Order – Appellant contended inspection not by duly authorised officer under Para 15 of 1968 Order – Court found seizure proved and non-production of documents unexplained – Trial not vitiated on alleged procedural irregularities in absence of prejudice [Paras 4(iii), 6-8, 11].

Storage versus Sale – Defence plea that mere storage does not establish dealing – Court held appellant failed to show lawful possession or agricultural use – No books of accounts, licence or returns produced as required under Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 – Presumption of culpable mental state under Section 10C EC Act attracted – Burden on accused under Section 14 not discharged [Paras 4(i), 4(v), 6-9].

Amendment to Para 11(2) of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order – Appellant argued amendment effective from 07.01.1986 not applicable to incident of 30.08.1984 – Court noted absence of any document showing bona fide possession even otherwise – Contravention established independently of amendment plea [Paras 4(iv), 8-9].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability despite Minimum Sentence under EC Act – Offence committed in 1984 – Long lapse of nearly 42 years – Appellant remained on bail and no subsequent offence reported – Following Tarak Nath Keshari and principle that Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later legislation with non obstante clause can override minimum sentence – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of probation under Section 4 PO Act [Paras 12-14].

Sentencing – Reformative Approach – After prolonged pendency, sending appellant to custody not expedient in interest of justice – Appellant directed to execute bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties and to maintain peace and good behaviour – Fine enhanced to Rs.20,000/- payable within 60 days – In default to serve sentence [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act upheld – Instead of custodial sentence, appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on execution of bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties – Fine of Rs.20,000/- to be paid within 60 days, failing which sentence to be served – Appeal disposed of.

Employees’ State Insurance – Damages under Section 85-B – Limitation – No express limitation prescribed for passing order under Section 85-B – Contribution for period 1972–1989 paid on 07.09.2000 – Damages imposed on 16.04.2014 – Delay of 14 years – Held: Even in absence of express statutory limitation, power must be exercised within reasonable period – Five years considered reasonable based on scheme of Act – Order passed beyond reasonable period unsustainable [Paras 21–26, 33].

Reasonable Period – Determination – Penal civil liability – Where statute confers power without prescribing limitation, such power must be exercised within reasonable time – Second proviso to Section 45-A (five-year limit), Regulation 32 (five-year record retention) and proviso to Explanation (b) to Section 77(1A) provide legislative guidance – Five years treated as reasonable benchmark for Section 85-B proceedings [Paras 23–25].

Interest Proceedings – Distinction from Damages – Pendency of interest proceedings and litigation regarding rate of interest does not justify delay in initiating damages – Damages levied for delayed contribution, not for interest – Hence, independent cause – Fourteen-year delay unexplained and unreasonable [Paras 27–28].

Welfare Legislation – Penal Provisions – Deterrence – Though ESI Act is beneficial social legislation, penalty provisions cannot be invoked after inordinate delay – Certainty in litigation required – Deterrent effect diluted if invoked after long lapse of time [Para 30].

Scope of Judgment – Court proceeded on assumption that no express limitation exists for Section 85-B – Question whether express limitation is otherwise provided kept open for adjudication in appropriate case [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Substantial question of law answered against the appellant-Corporation and in favour of respondent-Gymkhana – Order of ESI Court quashing damages upheld – Statutory authorities expected to act within reasonable time henceforth.

Civil Law - Partition – Settlement Deed Creating Life Estate and Vested Remainder – Settlement deed conferred life interest on mother without power of alienation and vested remainder on her sons and their male progeny – Both sons predeceased life estate holder – Held, vested rights accrued on date of settlement and not contingent – Death of vested remaindermen before possession does not defeat their interest – Their widows and legal heirs entitled to succeed to such vested shares – Life estate holder had no right to execute relinquishment deed – Relinquishment ineffective – Trial Court decree upheld [Paras 41-46, 55-56].

Family Status – Validity of Marriage – Presumption from Cohabitation – Appellant claimed to be legally wedded wife of Tammi Naidu – Oral evidence of herself, relatives and tenant coupled with documentary evidence (criminal proceedings describing her as wife) proved marriage – Long cohabitation raises strong presumption of valid marriage – No cross-appeal against trial court finding – Held, appellant is legally wedded wife – Finding affirmed [Paras 25-27].

Legitimacy and Heirship – Proof of Relationship – Plaintiff claimed to be son born to Madhavarao and Anjamma – Evidence of mother, independent witness and admissions of defendants established marriage and paternity – Presumption in favour of marriage where parties lived together as husband and wife – No rebuttal by cogent evidence – Held, plaintiff proved to be son and legal heir of Madhavarao [Paras 28-33].

Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will must satisfy Section 68 Evidence Act read with Section 63 Succession Act – Scribe and two attesting witnesses examined – Evidence established that testatrix gave instructions, Will was read over, thumb impression affixed in presence of attestors and attested accordingly – No suspicious circumstances – Held, Will duly proved – Beneficiary entitled to share of testatrix [Paras 34-39].

Limited Estate – Power of Alienation – Life estate holder cannot convey better title than possessed – Settlement deed conferred only right of enjoyment without power of alienation – Relinquishment deed executed by life estate holder held ineffective – Vested remainder could not be defeated by such relinquishment – Rights of widows and son of predeceased vested remaindermen protected [Paras 42-45, 55].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Absence of Cross-Appeal – Respondent cannot seek larger relief in appeal without filing cross-appeal or cross-objections – Trial Court findings regarding shares accepted for over two decades – Held, in absence of challenge, respondents cannot seek modification of decree to claim entire property – Appeals confined to grounds raised by appellant [Paras 49-53].

Decision: A.S. Nos. 804 and 820 of 2002 dismissed – Common judgment and decree dated 09.09.1998 in O.S. Nos.13 and 18 of 1986 confirmed – Parties to bear their own costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.