Property Law - Ad-Interim Injunction – Co-Owners in Joint Property – Injunction Denied - Plaintiff-petitioner sought to restrain defendant-respondents from constructing on portions of unpartitioned land – Court held that co-owners possess equal rights to the entire joint property, and construction by one co-owner does not amount to ouster unless exclusive and hostile possession is established – Plaintiff directed to seek partition as the appropriate remedy [Paras 7-9, 12].

Rights of Co-Owners – Judicial Interpretation – Principles Reaffirmed - Reiterated principles from established precedents that mere construction by a co-owner on common land is at their own risk and does not confer exclusive rights – Equally, other co-owners retain the right to seek adjustment at the time of partition [Paras 10-11].

Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience – No Ground for Injunction Established - Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or potential for irreparable harm – Construction by the respondents was held to be subject to the final outcome of the partition suit [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. Impugned orders upheld. Pending applications disposed of. Observations limited to disposal of the injunction application and not on the merits of the suit [Paras 16-17].

Execution of Promissory Notes – Presumption of Consideration – Section 118(a), Negotiable Instruments Act – Execution and signatures on the promissory notes admitted by the defendants – Trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's claim based on minor discrepancies – Held: Execution of the promissory notes and consideration established; burden shifted to the defendants to rebut the presumption of consideration [Paras 27-28, 42].

Equitable Mortgage – Validity of Deposit of Title Deeds – Section 58(f), Transfer of Property Act – Deposit of title deeds with intent to create a security upheld – Defendants’ admissions during cross-examination supported the plaintiff’s claim – Equitable mortgage validly created [Paras 37-38].

Limitation Period – Error in Application of Law – Trial court wrongly applied a three-year limitation period for promissory notes, ignoring the equitable mortgage’s 12-year period under the Limitation Act – Judgment set aside [Para 14].

Interest Rate – Usurious Nature – Adjusted by Court – Interest rate of 24% per annum compounded annually found excessive – Reduced to 24% simple interest until the suit filing, followed by 12% simple interest until the judgment and 6% thereafter until realization [Paras 50-51].

Decision:

Appeal allowed in part. Trial court’s judgment dismissing the suit set aside. Plaintiff awarded:

Principal Amount: ₹2,00,000/-

Interest:

24% simple interest per annum from the transaction date to suit filing.

12% simple interest per annum from the suit filing date to the trial court judgment.

6% simple interest per annum from the judgment date until realization.

Part payments by defendants to be deducted from the decretal amount.

Defendants granted three months for redemption.

Matrimonial Disputes – Power to Quash FIR – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Non-Compoundable Offences – Amicable Settlement – FIR Quashed – In matrimonial disputes and cases relating to family matters, where the dispute is personal or private in nature, and the parties have resolved their issues amicably, the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even if some of the alleged offences are non-compoundable – Held: The continuation of criminal proceedings after a compromise would be an abuse of the process of law, and there would be no purpose served in continuing such proceedings – [Paras 9-11].

Compromise Between Parties – Legal Recognition – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Settlement Verified – The compromise between the parties was verified by the Registrar Judicial of the Court, and both parties confirmed its execution – Held: Once a genuine compromise is established, and the likelihood of conviction is remote, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to injustice – [Paras 3-4, 10-11].

High Court’s Inherent Powers – Matrimonial Offences – Quashing Criminal Proceedings – The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC extends to quashing criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes when it is evident that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the settlement and cause unnecessary hardship to the parties – [Para 9].

Judicial Precedent – Matrimonial Offences – Non-Compoundable Nature – The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases arising from family disputes, even non-compoundable offences may be quashed in the interest of justice where a genuine settlement has been reached – Reliance placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 – [Para 9].

Decision: FIR Quashed: FIR No. 19/2023 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Udhampur, for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, were quashed in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties.

Compromise Accepted: The compromise deed executed on 12/09/2024 was verified, and its contents were confirmed by both parties.

Abuse of Process Prevented: It was held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a waste of judicial resources.

Judicial Precedents Followed: The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that matrimonial disputes can be resolved through compromise, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
 

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Classification as Class-III Employee Affirmed - Petitioner contended that he was a Class-IV employee entitled to retire at 60 years instead of 58 years – Court upheld the respondents’ classification, noting that the petitioner worked as a Diesel Mechanic in the pay scale reserved for Class-III employees, making the retirement age of 58 years applicable [Paras 5-8].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Filed After 8 Years – Claim Barred - Petitioner retired in 2008 but filed the writ petition in 2016, after an unexplained delay of eight years – Court held the petition barred by delay and laches, referencing authoritative precedents rejecting belated claims under equitable jurisdiction [Paras 10-13].

Equitable Relief – Rights Must Be Asserted Promptly – Judicial Discretion Applied - Even though there was no prescribed limitation, the Court emphasized the need for vigilance in asserting rights under Article 226 – Held: Relief cannot be granted to a petitioner who has slept over his rights [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
 

Motor Accident – Liability of Insurer – Valid Driving License Established – The appellant/Insurance Company challenged its liability to indemnify the owner on the ground that the driver did not hold a valid driving license at the time of the accident – Held: Driver of the offending vehicle, Tilak Raj, had a valid driving license issued by the DTO Gurdaspur and endorsed by RTO Rajouri – No evidence produced by the appellant to disprove the validity of the license – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10-14].

Proof of Valid Driving License – Burden of Proof – The insurance company argued that the driver’s license was fake and sought to summon witnesses from the issuing authority (DTO Gurdaspur) – Held: The driver of the offending vehicle, produced as a witness by the insurer, proved the validity of his license – Insurance company, having opted to close its evidence, failed to prove otherwise – Statement of the driver was binding on the insurer [Paras 11-13].

Assessment of Compensation – Permanent Disability – Tribunal fixed compensation based on the claimant’s established 40% disability and basic monthly income of Rs. 5000/- – Tribunal’s award of Rs. 6,24,000/- upheld – Held: The tribunal’s findings were based on the evidence of the claimant, medical expert, and witnesses, and no material irregularity was found [Paras 6-7].

Grounds for Appeal – Lack of Evidence by Insurance Company – Despite claims regarding the invalidity of the driver’s license, the insurer failed to produce witnesses or additional evidence despite seeking to summon them initially – Counsel’s decision to close evidence at the Tribunal stage was binding – Appeal found meritless [Paras 12-14].

Decision: The appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was dismissed. The Tribunal’s findings, including the award of Rs. 6,24,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest in favor of the claimant, Rattan Lal, were upheld. The appellant/Insurance Company failed to prove its contentions, and the driver of the offending vehicle was found to possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident.

Criminal Law - Appellate Powers – Reappraisal of Evidence – Principles for Interference with Conviction – The Appellate Court has a duty to independently assess evidence and may substitute the findings of the Trial Court if it concludes differently on reassessment – Conviction cannot be upheld solely based on hostile witness testimonies unless corroborated by reliable and cogent evidence – [Paras 9-12].

Reliability of Witness Testimonies – Hostile Witnesses – Credibility – The Trial Court relied on the statements of witnesses who turned hostile or gave conflicting versions – Held: Statements of hostile witnesses can be relied upon only to the extent they corroborate the prosecution’s case – Where the evidence is unreliable or inconsistent, conviction cannot be sustained – [Paras 11-12, 20].

Recovery of Weapon – Admissibility and Evidentiary Value – Disclosure statements and recovery of weapons were relied upon by the Trial Court despite the absence of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports to link the weapons with the injuries – Held: Recovery alone, without forensic or corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish guilt – [Paras 14-15].

Medical Evidence – Non-examination of Doctor – The Trial Court relied on the injury certificate without examining the doctor who issued it – Held: Non-examination of the medical expert prejudices the accused’s right to cross-examine and renders such evidence inadmissible – [Paras 15-16].

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases – Reasonable Doubt – The prosecution failed to conclusively establish the appellant’s guilt, and the benefit of doubt must be given – Suspicion or conjecture cannot replace legal proof – [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeal (CRA No. 74/2013) filed by Ravinder Singh was allowed, and the conviction under Sections 324 and 325 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges.
The revision petition (CRR No. 20/2015) filed by the injured complainant, Chandu Ram, challenging the appellant’s acquittal under Section 307 RPC and the acquittal of co-accused Hari Singh, was dismissed.
The Trial Court’s reliance on hostile witnesses, absence of forensic evidence, and non-examination of the medical expert rendered the conviction unsustainable.
The appellant’s benefit of reasonable doubt was upheld, and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29/11/2013 was quashed.
 

Civil Law - Property Partition – Declaration of Co-ownership and Shares – Partition Decreed – Plaintiffs sought partition and declaration of rights over the suit property based on their status as legal heirs – Defendants contested claiming sole ownership – Trial and Appellate Courts declared the plaintiffs entitled to 1/6th share, rejecting the defense of exclusive ownership – Held: Plaintiffs are co-owners entitled to a share, and a preliminary partition decree was granted [Paras 11-12].

Release Deed – Undue Influence and Invalid Execution – Declaration Granted – Dispute arose over the validity of a Release Deed executed by the deceased (12th defendant) in favor of the appellants – Evidence showed the deceased suffered from hemiparesis and was in a mentally weak state during the execution, raising doubts about free consent – Held: The deed was invalid and void; burden of proof lay on the appellants to establish sound mental state and absence of undue influence, which they failed to discharge [Paras 13, 15-19].

Co-ownership and Rental Income – Share in Revenue Recognized – Plaintiffs claimed a share in the rental income from the suit property, leased to defendants 4-9 – While exact amounts were not proven, the Court directed rendition of accounts during the final decree proceedings to ascertain and apportion the income as per shares [Paras 21-24].

Permanent Injunction – Rights of Possession and Alienation – Granted – Evidence established defendants’ attempts to alienate and disturb plaintiffs’ peaceful possession of their portion of the suit property – Held: Injunction granted to restrain alienation and interference with possession until partition is finalized [Paras 25-27].

Procedural Validity – Sufficiency of Court Fees and Joinder of Parties – Issues Resolved – Defendants challenged the suit for improper valuation and non-joinder of necessary parties – Court upheld proper valuation under the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and found no defects in party joinder [Para 11].

Decision:

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts. Plaintiffs were granted a preliminary decree for 1/6th share in the property, a declaration that the Release Deed is void, permanent injunctions, and relief for rendition of accounts. No costs were imposed.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Uniform Market Value – Land acquired for the construction of a railway line, utilized for a single public purpose – Reference Court enhanced compensation uniformly at ₹25,000 per kanal, irrespective of land classification – Held: Enhancement justified as classification had no relevance due to uniform use of land – Based on the principle in Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 447, where no development deductions were permitted for land acquired for public purposes [Paras 8-9].

Market Value – Evidence and Comparable Sale Instances – Court relied on sale deeds of similar land located in the vicinity to determine fair compensation – Witness testimonies established the proximity of the acquired land to schools, factories, and residential areas, warranting higher compensation – Held: Enhanced compensation reflects the true market value of the acquired land [Paras 11-12].

Precedent – Similar Case Outcome – Binding Nature – Co-ordinate Bench judgment in General Manager, Northern Railway v. Rajneesh Kumar & Others (RFA No. 378 of 2012) affirmed the enhancement of compensation in identical circumstances for land acquired for the Nangal–Talwara Railway Line – Held: Consistency in judicial decisions mandates no interference with the Reference Court’s award [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld the Reference Court's enhanced compensation of ₹25,000 per kanal – Appeal by Northern Railway dismissed as devoid of merit, with no error found in the award [Paras 10, 14].
 

Contract Law – Tender Process – Discharge of Tender – Eligibility Criteria – Petition under Article 226 challenging discharge of tender by respondent authority – Petitioner alleged fulfillment of eligibility criteria under clause 4.1.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), requiring five years' experience of owning and operating at least five functioning retail outlets of allopathic medicines – Respondent contended that petitioner failed to meet criteria as no single outlet had been continuously operational for five years – Held: Respondent's interpretation of eligibility clause upheld – Authority, as the author of tender, is best positioned to interpret terms – No mala fides or arbitrariness found in decision to discharge tender – Petition dismissed [Paras 6.1–6.5, 6.15–6.16].

Contract Law – "Letter of Intent" (LoI) – Binding Nature – Petitioner claimed LoI dated 05.08.2024 constituted a binding contract – Court held LoI issued under clause 31 of the NIT only indicated pre-acceptance of tender, not notification of award under clause 32 – No performance security furnished nor formal agreement executed as required – Communication from the Chief Medical Officer via personal email found irregular and non-binding – Held: No concluded contract existed – Respondent acted within rights to discharge tender [Paras 6.6–6.13].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Tender Decisions – Respondent authority discharged tender upon finding no bidder met eligibility criteria – Authority received multiple complaints and scrutinized documents before rejecting bids – Discretion to cancel tender vested in clause 30 of NIT – Court deferred to authority's decision in absence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural irregularity – Held: Interpretation of tender terms by employer found reasonable and in line with the purpose of ensuring uninterrupted supply of medicines [Paras 6.3–6.5, 6.14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Discharge of tender upheld – No costs.