Civil Writ - Government's Power to Take Over Water Bodies – Compliance with Natural Justice Required – No Proof of Private Ownership - The petitioner contended that the impugned order under Section 17A of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act was passed without due notice and without verifying whether the property was indeed a water body – The respondent-KMC argued that the land was a designated water body requiring conservation – The High Court held that while the law allows the government to take control of water bodies for ecological preservation, such action must be preceded by proper notice and inquiry – Held: The petitioner failed to provide documentary proof that the land in question was not a water body, and thus, the takeover was legally justified [Paras 16-24].

Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Alternative Remedy Exists – Challenge to Government Action Must Follow Statutory Process - The respondents argued that the petitioner should have pursued an appeal under Section 18 of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act before approaching the High Court – The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked when an adequate statutory remedy is available – Held: Since the petitioner did not exhaust the alternative remedy, the writ petition was not maintainable [Paras 26-27].

Locus Standi of the Petitioner – Burden of Proof Lies on the Party Challenging Government Action - The petitioner claimed ownership of the land but failed to provide conclusive evidence linking the disputed water body to their property – The High Court noted that municipal records classified the land as a water body and that the petitioner had not taken steps to correct the classification – Held: Mere assertion of ownership without substantive proof is insufficient to challenge a government action under the Fisheries Act [Paras 24-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Government Action Upheld - The High Court held that the petitioner had not established a valid legal basis to challenge the municipal action under Section 17A of the Act – Held: The writ petition was dismissed, and all connected applications were disposed of [Paras 31-35].
 

Accident Claim - Compensation for Motor Accident Injuries – Just and Reasonable Award – Enhanced by High Court - The claimant sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident and was awarded ₹1,40,000/- by the MACT – The High Court found that the tribunal did not adequately compensate for pain, suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earnings – Held: Compensation enhanced to ₹3,00,000/- with an increased interest rate of 9% per annum [Paras 16-26].

Negligence and Liability – Contributory Negligence Not Established – Insurance Company Liable - The insurance company argued that the claimant was partly negligent and did not have a valid driving license – The High Court held that there was no cross-appeal or evidence proving contributory negligence – Held: The insurer is liable to pay the enhanced compensation as no policy violations were established [Paras 7-13].

Medical Expenses and Future Treatment – Award Enhanced Based on Medical Evidence - The claimant produced medical bills totaling ₹1,16,225/- and required further surgery for rod removal – The High Court held that the MACT erred in awarding only ₹50,000/- for medical expenses – Held: ₹1,20,000/- awarded for medical expenses, and ₹25,000/- granted for future treatment [Paras 18-20].

Loss of Earnings and Pain & Suffering – Tribunal’s Award Insufficient – Enhanced - The claimant was a businessman and agriculturist but failed to produce income proof – The High Court considered a notional monthly income of ₹5,000/- and awarded ₹25,000/- for loss of earnings during treatment – Further, considering hospitalization and prolonged treatment, ₹80,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Compensation Enhanced to ₹3,00,000/- with 9% Interest - The High Court set aside the MACT’s award and enhanced the compensation, ensuring fair recompense for the injuries suffered – Held: The insurance company shall pay the enhanced amount with interest, and the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount upon deposit [Paras 26-28].
 

Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment – Prejudice to Litigants – Order Set Aside - The Single Judge heard arguments on 18/05/2022 but pronounced the order only on 05/06/2023 – The appellants contended that the delay violated judicial discipline and deprived them of the opportunity to seek timely relief – The High Court held that while mere delay does not invalidate an order, in this case, the delay led to procedural unfairness – Held: The inordinate delay of over a year caused prejudice to the appellants, warranting setting aside the impugned order [Paras 12-18].

Injunction in Commercial Disputes – Failure to Consider Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, and Irreparable Injury – Order Unsustainable - The learned Single Judge granted an injunction without assessing the fundamental requirements of interim relief – The High Court found that the order was cryptic and did not discuss whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case or whether the balance of convenience favored them – Held: Injunction orders must be reasoned, and failure to consider the three essential elements renders the order unsustainable [Paras 24-26].

Pledged Shares and Right to Sell – Restriction on Alienation Until Fresh Consideration - The plaintiffs sought a declaration that no valid pledge existed over certain shares and requested an injunction preventing their sale – The High Court noted that prior to the interim order, 16,00,000 shares had already been sold – Held: Pending fresh adjudication, the remaining pledged shares shall not be alienated, transferred, or disposed of [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Injunction Order Quashed – Matter Remanded for Fresh Consideration - The High Court quashed the order dated 05/06/2023 and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication of the injunction application within six weeks – Held: The injunction application must be decided expeditiously, without being influenced by prior orders, and all contentions remain open [Paras 26-28].
 

Civil Law - Limitation for Specific Performance – No Fixed Date for Performance – Suit Within Time - The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, holding that the agreement stipulated execution of the sale deed within six months – The High Court found that the six-month period related only to the completion of construction and handing over of possession, not execution of the sale deed – Held: In the absence of a fixed date for performance, the suit was within the three-year limitation period, and the trial court erred in dismissing it as time-barred [Paras 40-50].

Genuineness of Agreement – Allegation of Interpolation Rejected – Validity Upheld - The defendant contended that the agreement was forged or interpolated – The High Court found that all insertions were accompanied by signatures, confirming authenticity – Held: The agreement dated October 16, 1995 was genuine, and the defendant’s contradictory stands regarding its validity were legally untenable [Paras 66-70].

Doctrine of Part Performance – Admission by Co-Owners – Sale Deed Execution Directed - Two out of three co-owners admitted the agreement and executed a registered sale deed for their 2/3rd share – The High Court held that the remaining defendant was bound by the agreement and must execute a deed for her 1/3rd share – Held: The plaintiff is entitled to specific performance for the remaining share, upon payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,667/- [Paras 55-65].

Eviction Decree and Specific Performance – Plaintiff’s Ownership Prevails Over Possession Dispute - The defendant argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not challenge the counterclaim decree for eviction – The High Court rejected this argument, stating that once the plaintiff becomes the lawful owner, the eviction decree becomes inoperative – Held: The decree for specific performance supersedes the eviction decree, and the defendant must execute the sale deed [Paras 80-85].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Trial Court’s Order Set Aside – Decree of Specific Performance Granted - The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision and directed the defendant to execute a sale deed for her 1/3rd share in favor of the plaintiff upon payment of Rs.1,667/- – Held: If the defendant fails to comply, the plaintiff is entitled to have the sale deed executed through court [Paras 98-101].
 

Bail - NDPS – Charge Sheet Without FSL Report – Bail Granted - The petitioner was arrested for possession of 300 grams of MDMA and remained in custody for nearly a year – The prosecution filed a charge sheet without an accompanying Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report – The Court held that in cases under the NDPS Act, a chemical analysis report is an integral part of the investigation, and without it, the charge sheet is incomplete – Held: Since the Supreme Court is considering the issue of charge sheets being filed without FSL reports, and in similar cases bail has been granted, the petitioner is entitled to bail [Paras 6-7].

Long Pre-Trial Detention – No Trial Commenced – Bail Cannot Be Denied Indefinitely - The petitioner was in custody since 29.03.2023 and was granted interim bail on 13.03.2024 – The trial had not yet commenced – The Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trial proceedings violates the petitioner’s rights – Held: The interim bail order was made absolute, and the petitioner was directed to attend trial proceedings regularly [Paras 5-6].

Conditions for Bail – Compliance with Court Directives Required - The High Court imposed conditions, including surrendering the passport, refraining from influencing witnesses, and appearing before the trial court on scheduled dates – Held: Violation of any condition would result in the cancellation of bail [Para 7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Interim Order Made Absolute - The Court made the interim bail granted on 13.03.2024 absolute and directed the petitioner to comply with all bail conditions, keeping the legal issue of FSL reports open for future determination [Para 7].
 

Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Denial of Education – Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Wife alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, including coercion to discontinue her education and demand for dowry – Husband denied allegations and contended that he supported her studies – Trial court ruled in favor of husband, holding that cruelty was not established – High Court reversed the decision, holding that preventing a spouse from pursuing education or creating conditions that obstruct education amounts to mental cruelty, justifying divorce [Paras 16-22].

Mental Cruelty – Objective Assessment – Court emphasized that cruelty need not be intentional – It is sufficient if the conduct of one spouse causes anguish, frustration, or humiliation to the other – Relying on Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy and Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, the Court held that the husband's actions amounted to mental cruelty, warranting dissolution of marriage [Paras 14-20].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Justification for Divorce – Parties lived separately for over eight years – Mediation efforts failed at both trial and appellate stages – Court held that forcing the parties to continue the marriage would serve no purpose – Decreed that the marriage should be dissolved in light of long separation and irreconcilable differences [Paras 21-23].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Unjustified Decree – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Husband’s claim for restitution was based on the assertion that the wife left without reasonable excuse – High Court held that compelling a spouse to discontinue education and endure an unwelcoming environment constitutes a valid reason to live separately – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights set aside [Paras 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeals allowed – Marriage dissolved on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Trial court's decree rejecting divorce petition set aside – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of husband also set aside [Paras 23-24].
 

Contempt of Court – No Willful Disobedience – Supervening Circumstances Justified Delay - The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to distribute the collected ‘Dakshina’ among the three managing families of the temple as per the 2018 High Court judgment – The respondents contended that distribution was temporarily halted due to an internal dispute among family members and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic – The High Court held that the delay was due to legitimate administrative and legal hurdles, and there was no deliberate violation of the court’s order – Held: Mere delay, without intent to defy the court, does not amount to contempt [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Directives for Temple Administration – Compliance Achieved – Contempt Petition Infructuous - The Court examined records and found that post-2023, the respondents resumed the daily counting and monthly distribution of ‘Dakshina’ as per the 2018 judgment – Evidence of deposits and withdrawals from bank accounts confirmed compliance – Held: Since the court’s directives were now being followed, no further action was necessary, and the contempt petition was closed [Paras 11-13].

Locus Standi in Contempt Proceedings – Petitioner’s Standing Disputed – No Proof of Membership in Managing Families - The respondents argued that the petitioner was not a direct party to the original writ petition and had not proven his status as a beneficiary – The Court noted that a contempt petition can only be filed by a party with a direct grievance regarding non-compliance – Held: Though the petitioner’s membership in the managing families was in dispute, the issue was moot since compliance had already been ensured [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Contempt Petition Dismissed – No Further Action Required - The Court found no willful disobedience of its 2018 judgment and dismissed the contempt petition – Held: The petitioner’s claims were now irrelevant as compliance had been established, and the case was closed [Paras 13-15].
 

Civil Law - Eviction – Default in Payment of Rent – Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Eviction Decreed – The plaintiffs/landlords filed a suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, alleging that the tenant was in arrears since 01.09.1982 – The tenant disputed the rate of rent and claimed an agreement for adjustment of house tax against rent – The Trial Court fixed provisional rent at Rs.12/- per month under Section 13(1) of the Act, which the tenant failed to deposit – The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court – Held: The tenant's failure to deposit rent as per the court’s provisional order amounted to default, making him liable for eviction – Courts below committed an error in ignoring the mandatory compliance under Section 13(1) – Substantial question of law answered in favor of the landlords – Eviction decree granted with a two-month period to vacate [Paras 12-17].

Service Law – Dismissal from Judicial Service – Challenge to Rejection of Representations – Doctrine of Laches - Delay in Seeking Writ Relief – Petitioners’ termination orders were passed in 2002, but the writ petition was filed in 2017 – Challenge to similar termination orders was previously dismissed by the Full Bench of the High Court in 2008, and a review was also dismissed in 2017 – Held: The petition is barred by laches as the delay of 16 years in approaching the Court remains unexplained, making the claim stale and unmaintainable [Paras 8-12].

Acquittal in Criminal Case – Effect on Disciplinary Action – Petitioners contended that their acquittal in the corruption case nullified the basis of their termination – Held: Mere acquittal does not automatically entitle a person to reinstatement, especially when the initial challenge to termination had already attained finality up to the Supreme Court – Once a judicial determination has been made, acquittal does not revive a concluded matter [Paras 16-18].

Finality of Judicial Decisions – Principle of Res Judicata – Petitioners’ claim of reinstatement was already adjudicated by the Full Bench of the High Court and later by the Supreme Court – Once a decision attains finality, reopening the issue is impermissible – Held: Petition dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 17-18].